{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_60631/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_60631","id":"gutenberg_60631","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/60631","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Religion","Science","Zoroastrianism"],"text":"A MODERN ZOROASTRIAN.\n\n\n\n\nA MODERN ZOROASTRIAN.\n\n\n    _1000 copies printed, February, 1888._\n    _1000   \u201d       \u201d     March, 1889._\n    _1000   \u201d       \u201d     March, 1890._\n    _1000   \u201d       \u201d     June, 1890._\n    _1000   \u201d       \u201d     March, 1891._\n    _1000   \u201d       \u201d     June, 1892._\n    _1000   \u201d       \u201d     February, 1893._\n    _1000   \u201d       \u201d     November, 1893._\n\n\n\n\n                          A MODERN ZOROASTRIAN\n\n                                   BY\n                                S. LAING,\n\n                                AUTHOR OF\n     \u201cMODERN SCIENCE AND MODERN THOUGHT,\u201d \u201cPROBLEMS OF THE FUTURE,\u201d\n                            \u201cHUMAN ORIGINS.\u201d\n\n                            Eighth Thousand.\n\n                      LONDON: CHAPMAN AND HALL, LD.\n                                  1893.\n\n                       CHARLES DICKENS AND EVANS,\n                          CRYSTAL PALACE PRESS.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO NEW EDITION.\n\n\nFrom some of the criticisms on the First Edition of this work I fear\nthat the distinction I endeavoured to draw between the use of the term\n\u201cpolarity\u201d in the inorganic and in the spiritual worlds has not been\nmade sufficiently clear. I stated in the Introduction \u201cThat while the\nprinciple of polarity pervades both worlds, I am far from assuming that\nthe laws under which it acts are identical; and that virtue and vice,\npain and pleasure, are products of the same mathematical laws as regulate\nthe attractions and repulsions of molecules and atoms.\u201d But this warning\nhas been apparently overlooked by some readers who have assumed that\ninstead of analogy I meant identity, and that it was a mistake to use the\nsame word \u201cpolarity\u201d for phenomena so essentially distinct as those of\nthe material and the spiritual worlds.\n\nThus my \u201cguide, philosopher, and friend,\u201d Professor Huxley, for whose\nauthority I have the highest respect, observed in a recent article, that\nhe had long ago acquired a habit, if he came across the word polarity\napplied to anything but magnetism and electricity, of throwing down\nthe book and reading no farther. I must confess that I felt a little\ndisconcerted when I read this passage; but I was soon consoled, for, in a\nmonth or two afterwards, I came across another passage in the same Review\nwhich said, \u201cHowever revolting may be the accumulation of misery at the\nnegative pole of Society, in contrast with that of monstrous wealth at\nthe positive pole, this state of things must abide and grow continuously\nworse, as long as Istar (the dual Goddess of the Babylonians) holds her\nway unchecked.\u201d\n\nSurely, I thought, here is a case in which the Professor must have thrown\ndown the Review when he came to these words: but when I came to the\nend, I found that it was not the Review, but the pen, which must have\nbeen thrown down, for the article is signed \u201cT. Huxley.\u201d Can there be\na more conclusive proof that there are a vast variety of facts outside\nof magnetism and electricity, connected by an underlying idea, which\ninevitably suggests analogy to them, and which can be most conveniently\nexpressed by the word \u201cpolarity\u201d? Words after all are only coins to\nfacilitate the interchange of ideas, and the best word is that which\nserves the purpose most clearly and concisely. Thus instead of using\na waggon load of copper, or the verbiage of a conveyancer\u2019s deed, to\nexpress the ideas comprised in such words as \u201ctheism,\u201d \u201cpantheism,\u201d or\n\u201cagnosticism,\u201d we coin them for general use, as Huxley did the word\n\u201cagnosticism,\u201d in order to convey our meaning.\n\nPolarity is such a word. It sums up what Emerson says in his Essay on\nCompensation: \u201cPolarity, or action and reaction, we meet in every part of\nNature; in darkness and light; in the ebb and flow of waters; in male and\nfemale; in the inspiration and expiration of plants and animals; in the\nundulations of fluids and of sound; in the centripetal and centrifugal\ngravity; in electricity, galvanism, and chemical affinity. Superinduce\nMagnetism at one end of a needle, the opposite Magnetism takes place at\nthe other end. If the South attracts, the North repels. An inevitable\ndualism besets nature, so that each thing is a half, and suggests another\nto make it whole: as spirit, matter; man, woman; odd, even; subjective,\nobjective; in, out; upper, under; motion, rest; yea, nay.\u201d\n\nThese, by whatever name we like to call them, are facts and not fancies,\nand facts which enter largely into all questions, whether of science,\nphilosophy, religion, or practical policy. Every one who wishes to keep\nat all abreast with modern culture, ought to have some general knowledge\nof the ideas and principles which underlie them and which are embraced\nin the comprehensive word \u201cpolarity.\u201d My object in this book has been\nto assist the reader, who is not a specialist, in arriving at some\ngeneral understanding of the subjects treated of, and I may hope, in\nawakening such an interest in them as may induce him to prosecute further\nresearches. If I succeed in this, my object will have been attained.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe reception given to my former work, on \u2018Modern Science and Modern\nThought,\u2019 has induced me to write this further one. I refer not so much\nto the reviews of professional critics, though as a rule nothing could be\nmore courteous and candid, but rather to the letters I have received from\nreaders of various age, sex, and condition, saying that I had assisted\nthem in understanding much interesting matter which had previously been a\nsealed book to them.\n\nIf I am good for anything, it is for a certain faculty of lucid\ncondensation, and I have thought that I might apply this to some of the\nless-known branches of modern science, such as the new chemistry and\nphysiology, as well as, in my first work, to the more familiar subjects\nof astronomy and geology; while at the same time I might extend it to\nsome of the more obvious problems of religion, morals, metaphysics, and\npractical life, which force themselves, more and more every day, on the\nattention of intelligent thinkers.\n\nAs in the former work the scientific speculations were linked together by\nthe leading idea of the universality of law, so, in this, unity is given\nto them by the all-pervading principle of polarity, which manifests\nitself everywhere as the fundamental condition of the material and\nspiritual universe.\n\nFor the scientific portion of the work I am indebted to the most\napproved authorities, such as Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel, and Professor\nCooke\u2019s volume on the New Chemistry in the International Scientific\nSeries. For the religious and philosophical speculations I am myself\nresponsible; for, although I have derived the greatest possible pleasure\nand profit from Herbert Spencer\u2019s writings, I had arrived at my principal\nconclusions independently before I had read any of his works. I can\nonly hope that I may have succeeded in presenting a good many abstruse\nquestions in a popular form, intelligible to the average mind of ordinary\nreaders, and calculated, if it teaches nothing else, to teach them a\npractical philosophy which inculcates tolerance and charity, and assists\nthem in finding\n\n    Sermons in stones and good in everything.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n\n                                                                      PAGE\n\n                               CHAPTER I.\n\n                              INTRODUCTORY.\n\n    Experiment with magnet\u2014Principle of polarity\u2014Applies\n    universally\u2014Analogies in spiritual world\u2014Zoroastrian\n    religion\u2014Changes in modern environment\u2014Require corresponding\n    changes in religions and philosophies                                1\n\n                               CHAPTER II.\n\n                 POLARITY IN MATTER\u2014MOLECULES AND ATOMS.\n\n    Matter consists of molecules\u2014Nature of molecules\u2014Laws of\n    their action in gases\u2014Law of Avogadro\u2014Molecules composed\n    of atoms\u2014Proved by composition of water\u2014Combinations of\n    atoms\u2014Elementary substances\u2014Qualities of matter depend on\n    atoms\u2014Dimensions and velocities of molecules and atoms\u2014These\n    are ascertained _facts_, not theories                                9\n\n                              CHAPTER III.\n\n                                 ETHER.\n\n    Ether proved by light\u2014Light-waves\u2014Elasticity of ether\u2014Its\n    universal diffusion\u2014Influences molecules and atoms\u2014Is\n    influenced by them\u2014Successive orders of the infinitely\n    small\u2014Illustrated by the differential and integral\n    calculus\u2014Explanation of this calculus\u2014Theory of vortex rings        21\n\n                               CHAPTER IV.\n\n                                 ENERGY.\n\n    Energy of motion and of position\u2014Energy can be\n    transformed, not created or destroyed\u2014Not created by\n    free-will\u2014Conservation of mechanical power\u2014Convertibility\n    of heat and work\u2014Nature of heat\u2014The steam-engine\u2014Different\n    forms of energy\u2014Gravity\u2014Molecular energy\u2014Chemical\n    energy\u2014Dynamite\u2014Chemical affinities\u2014Electricity\u2014Produced\n    by friction\u2014By the voltaic battery\u2014Electric currents\u2014Arc\n    light\u2014Induction\u2014Magnetism\u2014The magnetic needle\u2014The electric\n    telegraph\u2014The telephone\u2014Dynamo-electric engine\u2014Accumulator          36\n\n                               CHAPTER V.\n\n                           POLARITY IN MATTER.\n\n    Ultimate elements of universe\u2014Built up by polarity\u2014Experiment\n    with magnet\u2014Chemical affinity\u2014Atomic poles\u2014Alkalies\n    and acids\u2014Quantivalence\u2014Atomicity\u2014Isomerism\u2014Chemical\n    stability\u2014Thermochemistry\u2014Definition of atoms\u2014All matter built\n    up by polar forces                                                  65\n\n                               CHAPTER VI.\n\n                            POLARITY IN LIFE.\n\n    Contrast of living and dead\u2014Eating and\n    being eaten\u2014Trace matter upwards and life\n    downwards\u2014Colloids\u2014Cells\u2014Protoplasm\u2014Monera\u2014Composition\n    of protoplasm\u2014Essential qualities of life\u2014Nutrition and\n    sensation\u2014Motion\u2014Reproduction\u2014Spontaneous generation\u2014Organic\n    compounds\u2014Polar conditions of life                                  76\n\n                              CHAPTER VII.\n\n                 PRIMITIVE POLARITIES\u2014PLANT AND ANIMAL.\n\n    Contrast in developed life\u2014Plants producers, animals\n    consumers\u2014Differences disappear in simple forms\u2014Zoophytes\u2014\n    Protista\u2014Nummulites\u2014Corals\u2014Fungi\u2014Lichens\u2014Insectivorous\n    plants\u2014Geological succession\u2014Primary period, Alg\u00e6 and\n    Ferns\u2014Secondary period, Gymnosperms\u2014Tertiary and recent,\n    Angiosperms\u2014Monocotyledons and Dicotyledons\u2014Parallel evolution\n    of animal life\u2014Primary, protista, mollusca, and fish\u2014Secondary,\n    reptiles\u2014Tertiary and recent, mammals                               92\n\n                              CHAPTER VIII.\n\n                  PRIMITIVE POLARITIES\u2014POLARITY OF SEX.\n\n    Sexual generation\u2014Base of ancient cosmogonies\u2014Propagation\n    non-sexual in simpler forms\u2014Am\u0153ba and cells\u2014Germs and\n    buds\u2014Anemones\u2014Worms\u2014Spores\u2014Origin of sex\u2014Ovary and male\n    organ\u2014Hermaphrodites\u2014Parthenogenesis\u2014Bees and insects\u2014Man and\n    woman\u2014Characters of each sex\u2014Woman\u2019s position\u2014Improved by\n    civilisation\u2014Christianity the feminine pole\u2014Monogamy the law\n    of nature\u2014Tone respecting women test of character\u2014Women in\n    literature\u2014In society\u2014Attraction and repulsion of sexes\u2014Like\n    attracts unlike\u2014Ideal marriage\u2014Woman\u2019s rights and modern\n    legislation                                                        102\n\n                               CHAPTER IX.\n\n              PRIMITIVE POLARITIES\u2014HEREDITY AND VARIATION.\n\n    Heredity in simple forms of life\u2014In more complex\n    organisms\u2014Pangenesis\u2014Varieties how produced\u2014Fixed by law of\n    survival of the fittest\u2014Dr. Temple\u2019s view\u2014Examples: triton,\n    axolotl\u2014Variations in individuals and species\u2014Lizards into\n    birds\u2014Ringed snakes\u2014Echidna                                        117\n\n                               CHAPTER X.\n\n             THE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE\u2014BRAIN AND THOUGHT.\n\n    Basis of knowledge\u2014Perception\u2014Constitution of\n    brain\u2014White and grey matter\u2014Average size and weight\n    of brains\u2014European, negro, and ape\u2014Mechanism of\n    perception\u2014Sensory and motor nerves\u2014Separate areas of\n    brain\u2014Sensory and motor centres\u2014Abnormal states of\n    brain\u2014Hypnotism\u2014Somnambulism\u2014Trance\u2014Thought-reading\u2014\n    Spiritualism\u2014Reflex action\u2014Ideas how formed\u2014Number\n    and space\u2014Creation unknowable\u2014Conceptions based on\n    perceptions\u2014Metaphysics\u2014Descartes, Kant,\n    Berkeley\u2014Anthropomorphism\u2014Laws of nature                           125\n\n                               CHAPTER XI.\n\n                       RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES.\n\n    Religions, \u2018working hypotheses\u2019\u2014Newman\u2019s illative sense\u2014Origins\n    of religions\u2014Ghosts and spirits\u2014Fetishes\u2014Nature-worship\u2014Solar\n    myths\u2014Planets\u2014Evolution of nature-worship\u2014Polytheism,\n    pantheism, and theism\u2014Evolution of monotheism in the\n    Old Testament\u2014Evolution of morality\u2014Natural law and\n    miracle\u2014Evidence for miracles\u2014Insufficiency of evidence\u2014Absence\n    of intelligent design\u2014Agnosticism\u2014Origin of evil\u2014Can only\n    be explained by polarity\u2014Optimism and pessimism\u2014Jesus, the\n    Christian Ormuzd\u2014Christianity without miracles                     146\n\n                              CHAPTER XII.\n\n                        CHRISTIANITY AND MORALS.\n\n    Christianity based on morals\u2014Origin of morality\u2014Traced\n    in Judaism\u2014Originates in evolution\u2014Instance of\n    murder\u2014Freedom of will\u2014Will suspended in certain states of\n    brain\u2014Hypnotism\u2014Mechanical theory\u2014Pre-established harmony\u2014Human\n    and animal conscience\u2014Analysis of will\u2014Explained by\n    polarity\u2014Practical conclusion                                      184\n\n                              CHAPTER XIII.\n\n                             ZOROASTRIANISM.\n\n    Zoroaster an historical person\u2014The Parsees\u2014Iranian branch\n    of Aryan family\u2014Zoroaster a religious reformer\u2014Scene at\n    Balkh\u2014Conversion of Gushtasp\u2014Doctrines of the \u2018excellent\n    religion\u2019\u2014Monotheism\u2014Polarity\u2014Dr. Haug\u2019s description\u2014Ormuzd\n    and Ahriman\u2014Anquetil du Perron\u2014Approximation\n    to modern thought\u2014Absence of miracles\u2014Code of\n    morals\u2014Its comprehensiveness\u2014And liberality\u2014Special\n    rites\u2014Fire-worship\u2014Disposal of dead\u2014Practical results\u2014The\n    Parsees of Bombay\u2014Their probity, enterprise, respect\n    for women\u2014Zeal for education\u2014Philanthropy and public\n    spirit\u2014Statistics\u2014Death and birth rates                            197\n\n                              CHAPTER XIV.\n\n                            FORMS OF WORSHIP.\n\n    Byron\u2019s lines\u2014Carnegie\u2019s description\u2014Parsee\n    nature-worship\u2014English Sunday\u2014The sermon\u2014Appeals to reason\n    misplaced\u2014Music better than words\u2014The Mass\u2014Zoroastrianism\n    brings religion into daily life\u2014Sanitation\u2014Zoroastrian\n    prayer\u2014Religion of the future\u2014Sermons in stones and good in\n    everything                                                         219\n\n                               CHAPTER XV.\n\n                          PRACTICAL POLARITIES.\n\n    Fable of the shield\u2014Progress and conservatism\u2014English and\n    French colonisation\u2014Law-abidingness\u2014Irish land question\u2014True\n    conservative legislation\u2014Ultra-conservatism\u2014Law and\n    education\u2014Patriotism\u2014Jingoism and parochialism\u2014True\n    statesmanship\u2014Free trade and protection\u2014Capital\n    and labour\u2014Egoism and altruism\u2014Socialism and\n    _laissez faire_\u2014Contracts\u2014Rights and duties of\n    landlords\u2014George\u2019s theory\u2014State interference\u2014Railways\u2014Post\n    Office\u2014Telegraphs\u2014National defence\u2014Concluding remarks              227\n\n\n\n\nA MODERN ZOROASTRIAN.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nINTRODUCTORY.\n\n    Experiment with magnet\u2014Principle of polarity\u2014Applies\n    universally\u2014Analogies in spiritual world\u2014Zoroastrian\n    religion\u2014Changes in modern environment\u2014Require\n    corresponding changes in religions and philosophies.\n\n\nScatter a heap of iron filings on a plate of glass; bring near it a\nmagnet, and tap the glass gently, and you will see the filings arrange\nthemselves in regular forms.\n\nIf one pole only of the magnet is brought near the glass the filings\narrange themselves in lines radiating from that pole.\n\nNext lay the bar-magnet on the glass so that the filings are influenced\nby both poles; they will arrange themselves into a series of regular\ncurves.\n\nIn other words, the Chaos of a confused heap of inert matter has become a\nCosmos of harmonious arrangement assuming definite form in obedience to\nlaw.\n\nAs the old saying has it, that \u2018every road leads to Rome,\u2019 so this\nsimple experiment leads up to a principle which underlies all existence\nknowable to human faculty\u2014that of Polarity. Why do the iron filings\narrange themselves in regular curves? Because they are magnetised by\nthe influence of the larger magnet, and each little particle of iron is\nconverted into a little magnet with two opposite poles attracting and\nrepelling.\n\n[Illustration]\n\nWhat is a magnet? It is a special manifestation of the more general\nprinciple of polarity, by which energy, when it passes from the passive\nor neutralised into the active state, does so under the condition of\ndeveloping opposite and conflicting energies: no action without reaction,\nno positive without a negative, and, as we see it in the simplest form in\nour magnets, no North Pole without a South Pole\u2014like ever repelling like\nand attracting unlike. The magnet, again, may be considered as a special\nform of electricity, for if we send an electric current through a coil of\ncopper wire encircling a bar of soft iron, the bar is at once converted\ninto a magnet; so that a magnet may be considered as the summing up,\nat two opposite extremities or poles, of the attractive and repulsive\neffects of electric currents circulating round it. But this electricity\nis itself subject to the law of polarity, whether developed by chemical\naction in the form of a current or electricity in motion, or by friction\nin the form of statical electricity of small quantity but high tension.\nIn all cases a positive implies a negative; in all, like repels like and\nattracts unlike. Conversely, as polarity produces definite structure, so\ndefinite structure everywhere implies polarity.\n\nThe same principle prevails not only throughout the inorganic or world\nof matter, but throughout the organic or world of life, and specially\nthroughout its highest manifestations in human life and character, and\nin the highest products of its evolution, in societies, religions, and\nphilosophies. To show this by some familiar and striking examples is the\nmain object of this book.\n\nBut here let me interpose a word of caution. I must avoid the error\nwhich vitiates Professor Drummond\u2019s interesting work on \u2018Natural Law in\nthe Spiritual World,\u2019 of confounding analogy and identity. Because the\nprinciple of polarity pervades alike the natural and spiritual worlds,\nI am far from assuming that the laws under which it acts are identical;\nand that virtue and vice, pain and pleasure, ugliness and beauty, are\nproducts of the same mathematical changes of sign and inverse squares\nor cubes of distances, as regulate the attractions and repulsions of\nmolecules and atoms. All I say is, that the same pervading principle may\nbe traced wherever human thought and human knowledge extend; that it is\napparently, for some reason unknown to us, the essential condition of all\nexistence within the sphere of that thought and that knowledge; and that\nwhat lies beyond it is the great unknown, behind the impenetrable veil\nwhich it is not given to mortals to uplift. In like manner, if I call\nmyself \u2018a modern Zoroastrian,\u2019 it is not that I wish or expect to teach\na new religion or revive an old one, to see Christian churches dedicated\nto Ormuzd, or right reverend bishops exchanging the apron and shovel-hat\nfor the mitre and flowing robes of the ancient Magi; but simply this.\nAll religions I take to be \u2018working hypotheses,\u2019 by which successive\nages and races of men try to satisfy the aspirations and harmonise the\nknowledge which in the course of evolution have come to be, for the\ntime, their spiritual equipment. The best proof of any religion is, that\nit exists\u2014i.e. that it is part of the same evolution, and that on the\nwhole it works well, i.e. is in tolerable harmony with its environment.\nWhen that environment changes, when loftier views of morality prevail,\nwhen knowledge is increased and the domain of science everywhere extends\nits frontier, religions must change with it if they are to remain good\nworking, and not become unworkable and unbelievable hypotheses.\n\nNow of all the religious hypotheses which remain workable in the present\nstate of human knowledge, that seems to me the best which frankly\nrecognises the existence of this dual law, or law of polarity, as the\nfundamental condition of the universe, and, personifying the good\nprinciple under the name of Ormuzd, and the evil one under that of\nAhriman, looks with earnest but silent and unspoken reverence on the\ngreat unknown beyond, which may, in some way incomprehensible to mortals,\nreconcile the two opposites, and give the final victory to the good.\n\n    Oh! yet we hope that somehow good\n    Will be the final goal of ill.\n\nSo sings the poet of the nineteenth century: so, if we understand his\ndoctrine rightly, taught the Bactrian sage, Zoroaster, some forty\ncenturies earlier.\n\nThis, and this alone, seems to me to afford a working hypothesis\nwhich is based on fact, can be brought into harmony with the existing\nenvironment, and embraces, in a wider synthesis, all that is good in\nother philosophies and religions.\n\nWhen I talk of our new environment, it requires one who, like the author,\nhas lived more than the Scriptural threescore and ten years, and has, so\nto speak, one foot on the past and one on the present, to realise how\nenormous is the change which a single generation has made in the whole\nspiritual surroundings of a civilised man of the nineteenth century.\nWhen I was a student at Cambridge, little more than fifty years ago,\nAstronomy was the only branch of natural science which could be said to\nbe definitely brought within the domain of natural law. And that only\nas regards the law of gravity, and the motions of the heavenly bodies,\nfor little or nothing was known as to their constitution. Geology was\njust beginning the series of conquests by which time and the order\nand succession of life on the earth have been annexed by science as\ncompletely as space by astronomy; and theories of cataclysms, universal\ndeluges, and special recent creations of animals and man, still held\ntheir ground, and were quoted as proofs of a universe maintained by\nconstant supernatural interference.\n\nAnd when I say that space had been annexed to science by astronomy, it\nwas really only that half of space which extends from the standpoint of\nthe human senses in the direction of the infinitely great. The other\nequally important half which extends downwards to the infinitely small\nwas unknown, or the subject only of the vaguest conjectures.\n\nChemistry was, to a great extent, an empirical science, and molecules and\natoms were at best guesses at truth, or rather convenient mathematical\nabstractions with no more actual reality than the symbols of the\ndifferential calculus. The real causes and laws of heat, light, and\nelectricity, were as little known as those of molecular action and of\nchemical affinity. The great laws of the indestructibility of matter, the\ncorrelation of forces, and the conservation of energy, were unknown, or\nonly just beginning to be foreshadowed. As regards life, protoplasm was\na word unheard of; scientific biology, zoology, and botany were in their\ninfancy; and the gradual building up of all living matter from a speck of\nprotoplasm, through a primitive cell, was not even suspected. Above all,\nthe works of Darwin had not been published, and evolution had not become\nthe general law of modern thought; nor had the discovery of the antiquity\nof man, and of his slow development upwards from the rudest origins,\nshattered into fragments established beliefs as to his recent miraculous\ncreation.\n\nScience and miracle have been fighting out their battle during the last\nfifty years along the whole line, and science has been at every point\nvictorious. Miracle, in the sense in which our fathers believed in it,\nhas been not only repulsed, but annihilated so completely, that really\nlittle remains but to bury the dead.\n\nThe result of these discoveries has been to make a greater change in the\nspiritual environment of a single generation than would be made in their\nphysical environment if the glacial period suddenly returned and buried\nNorthern Europe under polar ice. The change is certainly greater in the\nlast fifty years than it had been in the previous five hundred, and in\nmany respects greater than in the previous five thousand.\n\nIt may be sufficient to glance shortly at the equally great\ncorresponding changes which this period has witnessed in the practical\nconditions of life and of society. If astronomy and geology have extended\nthe dominion of the mind over space and time, steamers, railways, and\nthe electric telegraph have gained the mastery over them for practical\npurposes. Commerce and emigration have assumed international proportions,\nand India, Australia, and America are nearer to us, and connected with\nus by closer ties, than Scotland was to England in my schoolboy days.\nEducation and a cheap press have even in a greater degree revolutionised\nsociety, and knowledge, reaching the masses, has carried with it power,\nso that democracy and free-thought are, whether for good or evil,\neverywhere in the ascendant, and old privileges and traditions are\neverywhere decaying.\n\nWith such a great change of environment it is evident that many of the\nold creeds, institutions, and other organisms, adapted to old conditions,\nmust have become as obsolete as a schoolboy\u2019s jacket would be as the\ncomfortable habiliment of a grown-up man. But as a lobster which has cast\nits shell does not feel at ease until it has grown a new one, so thinking\nmen of the present day are driven to devise, to a great extent each\nfor themselves, some larger theory which may serve them as a \u2018working\nhypothesis\u2019 with which to go through life, and bring the ineradicable\naspirations and emotions of their nature into some tolerable harmony with\nexisting facts.\n\nTo me, as one of those thinking units, this theory, of what for want\nof a better name I call \u2018Zoroastrianism,\u2019 has approved itself as a\ngood working theory, which reconciles more intellectual and moral\ndifficulties, and affords a better guide in conduct and practical life\nthan any other; and, in a word, enables me to reduce my own individual\nChaos into some sort of an intelligible and ordered Cosmos. I feel moved,\ntherefore, to preach through the press my little sermon upon it, for the\nbenefit of those whom it may concern, feeling assured that the process of\nevolution, by which\n\n    The old order changes, giving place to new,\n\ncan best be assisted by the honest and unbiassed expression of the\nresults of individual thought and experience on the part of any one of\nthose units whose aggregates form the complicated organisms of religions\nand philosophies, of societies and of humanity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nPOLARITY IN MATTER\u2014MOLECULES AND ATOMS.\n\n    Matter consists of molecules\u2014Nature of molecules\u2014Laws of\n    their action in gases\u2014Law of Avogadro\u2014Molecules composed\n    of atoms\u2014Proved by composition of water\u2014Combinations of\n    atoms\u2014Elementary substances\u2014Qualities of matter depend on\n    atoms\u2014Dimensions and velocities of molecules and atoms\u2014These\n    are ascertained _facts_, not theories.\n\n\nIf in building a house that is to stand when the rains fall and the winds\nblow, it is requisite to go down to the solid rock for a foundation, so\nmuch the more is it necessary in building up a theory to begin at the\nbeginning and give it a solid groundwork. Nine-tenths of the fallacies\ncurrent in the world arise from the haste with which people rush to\nconclusions on insufficient premises. Take, for instance, any of the\npolitical questions of the day, such as the Irish question: how many\nof those who express confident opinions, and get angry and excited on\none side or the other, could answer any of the preliminary questions\nwhich are the indispensable conditions of any rational judgment? How\nmany marks would they get for an examination paper which asked what\nwas the population of Ireland; what proportion of that population was\nagricultural; what proportion of that agricultural population consisted\nof holders of small tenements; what was the scale of rents compared with\nthat for small holdings in other countries; how much of that rent was\nlevied on them for their own improvements; and other similar questions\nwhich lie at the root of the matter? In how many cases would it be found\nthat the whole superstructure of their confident and passionate theories\nabout the Irish difficulty was based on no more solid foundation than\ntheir like or dislike of a particular statesman or of a particular party?\n\nI propose therefore to begin at the beginning, and, taking the simplest\ncase, that of dead or inorganic matter, show how the material universe is\nbuilt up by the operation of the all-pervading law of polarity. What does\nmatter consist of? Of molecules, and molecules are made up of atoms, and\nthese are held together or parted, and built up into the various forms of\nthe material universe, primarily by polar forces.\n\nLet me endeavour to make this intelligible to the intelligent but\nunscientific reader. Suppose the Pyramid of Cheops shown for the first\ntime to a giant whose eye was on such a scale that he could just\ndiscern it as a separate object. He might make all sorts of ingenious\nconjectures as to its nature, but if microscopes had been invented in\nGiant-land and he looked through one, he would find that it was built\nup, layer by layer, on a regular plan and in determinate lines and\nangles, by molecules, or what seemed to him almost infinitely small\nmasses, of squared stone. For pyramid write crystal, and we may see by\nthe human sense, aided by human instruments and human reason, a similar\nstructure built up in the same way by minute particles. Or again, divide\nand subdivide our iron filings until we reach the limit of possible\nmechanical division discernible by the microscope; each one remains\nessentially a bar of iron, as capable of being magnetised, and showing\nthe same qualities and behaviour under chemical tests as the original\nbar of iron from which the filings were taken. This carries us a long\nway down towards the infinitely small, for mechanical division and\nmicroscopic visibility can be carried down to magnitudes which are of the\norder of 1/100000th of an inch.\n\nBut this is only the first step; to understand our molecules we must\nascertain whether they are infinitely divisible, and whether they are\ncontinuous, expanding by being spread out thinner and thinner like\ngold-beater\u2019s skin: or are they separate bodies with intervals between\nthem, like little planets forming one solar system and revolving in\nspace by fixed laws. Ancient science guessed at the former solution and\nembodied it in the maxim \u2018that nature abhors a vacuum\u2019: modern science\nproves the latter.\n\nIn the first place bodies combine only in fixed proportions, which is a\nnecessary consequence if they consist of definite indivisible particles,\nbut inconceivable if the substance of each is indefinitely divisible.\nThus water is formed in one way and one only: by uniting one volume or\nmolecule of oxygen with two of hydrogen, and any excess of one or the\nother is left out and remains uncombined. But if the molecules could be\ndivided into halves, quarters, and so on indefinitely, there can be no\nreason why their union should take place always in this one proportion\nand this only.\n\nA still more conclusive proof is furnished by the behaviour of substances\nwhich exist in the form of gases. If a jar is filled with one gas, a\nsecond and third gas can be poured into it as readily as into a vacuum,\nthe result being that the pressure on the sides of the jar is exactly\nequal to the sum of the separate pressures of each separate gas. This\nevidently means that the first gas does not occupy the whole space, but\nthat its particles are like a battalion of soldiers in loose skirmishing\norder, with such intervals between each unit that a second and third\nbattalion can be marched in and placed on the same ground, without\ndisturbing the formation, and with the result only of increasing the\nintensity of the fire.\n\nNow gas is matter as much as solids or liquids, and in the familiar\ninstance of water we see that it is merely a question of more or less\nheat whether the same matter exists as ice, water, or steam. The number\nand nature of the molecules is not changed, only in the one case they are\nclose to one another and solidly linked together; in the other, further\nremoved and free to move about one another, though still held together\nas a mass by their mutual attractions; and in the third, still further\napart, so that their mutual attraction is lost and they dart about, each\nwith its own proper motion, bombarding the surface which contains them,\nand by the resultant of their impacts producing pressure.\n\nIn this latter and simpler form of gas the following laws are found to\nprevail universally for all substances. Under like conditions volumes\nvary directly as the temperature and inversely as the pressure. That\nis to say, the pressure which contains them remaining the same, equal\nvolumes of air, steam, or any other substance in the state of gas, expand\ninto twice the volume if the temperature is doubled, three times if it\nis tripled, and so on; contracting in the same way if the temperature\nis lowered. If on the other hand the temperature remains constant, the\nvolume is reduced to one half or one third, if the pressure is doubled\nor tripled. From these laws the further grand generalisation has been\narrived at, that all substances existing in the form of gas contain the\nsame number of molecules in the same volume.\n\nThis, which is known as the Law of Avogadro, from the Italian chemist by\nwhom it was first discovered, is the fundamental law of modern chemistry,\nand the key to all certain and scientific knowledge of the constitution\nof matter and of the domain of the infinitely small, just as much as the\nlaw of gravity is to action of matter in the mass, and the resulting\nconditions and motions of mechanics and astronomy.\n\nThis conclusion obviously follows from it, that difference of weight\nin different substances arises not from one having more molecules in\nthe same volume than another, but from the molecules themselves being\nheavier. If we weigh a gallon or litre of hydrogen gas, which is the\nlightest known substance, and then weighing an equal volume of oxygen\ngas find that it is sixteen times heavier, we know for certain that the\nmolecule or ultimate particle of oxygen is sixteen times heavier than\nthat of hydrogen.\n\nIt is evident that in this way the molecules of all simple substances\nwhich can exist in the form of pure gas can be weighed, and their weight\nexpressed in terms of the unit which is generally adopted, that of the\nmolecule of the lightest known substance, hydrogen. But science, not\ncontent with this achievement, wants to know not the relative weight\nonly, but the absolute dimensions, qualities, and motions of these\nlittle bodies; and whether, although they cannot be divided further by\nmechanical means, and while retaining the qualities of the substances\nthey build up, they are really ultimate and indivisible particles or\nthemselves composites.\n\nChemistry and electricity give a ready answer to this latter question.\nMolecules are composites of still smaller bodies, and to get back to\nthe ultimate particle we must go to atoms. All chemical changes resolve\nthemselves into the breaking up of molecules and rearrangement of their\nconstituent atoms. If the opposite poles of a voltaic battery are\ninserted in a vessel containing water, molecules of water are broken up,\nbubbles of gas rise at each pole, and if these are collected, the gas at\nthe positive pole is found to be oxygen, and that at the negative pole\nhydrogen. Nothing has been added or taken away, for the weight of the two\ngases evolved exactly equals that of the water which has disappeared. But\nthe molecules of the water have been broken up, and their constituents\nreappear in totally different forms, for nothing can well be more unlike\nwater than each of the two gases of which it is composed. That it is\ncomposed of them can be verified by the reverse experiment of mixing the\ntwo gases together in the same proportion of two volumes of hydrogen to\none of oxygen as was produced by the decomposition of water, passing an\nelectric spark through the vessel containing the mixture, when with a\nloud explosion the gases reunite, and water is formed in precisely the\nsame quantity as produced the volumes of gas by its decomposition. Can\nthe ultimate particles of these gases be further subdivided; can they,\nlike those of water, be broken up and reappear in new forms? No; there\nis no known process by which an atom of oxygen can be made anything but\noxygen, or an atom of hydrogen anything but hydrogen.\n\nThe only thing which is compound in the composition of oxygen is that\nits molecules consist of two atoms linked together. This appears from\nthe fact that while the weight of oxygen, and therefore that of its\nmolecules, is sixteen times greater than that of an equal volume of\nhydrogen, and therefore of hydrogen molecules, it combines with it in\nthe proportion not of sixteen, but of eight to one. If, therefore, the\nmolecule were identical with the atom of oxygen, we must admit that the\natom could be halved, which is contrary to its definition as the ultimate\nindivisible particle of the substance oxygen. But if the oxygen molecule\nconsists of two linked atoms, O\u2014O, and the hydrogen molecule equally\nof two, H\u2014H, as can be proved by other considerations, everything is\nexplained by assuming that the molecule of water consists of two atoms of\nhydrogen linked to one of oxygen, or H\u2082O, and that when this molecule is\nbroken up by electricity, its constituents resolve themselves into atoms,\nwhich recombine so as to form twice as many molecules of hydrogen, H\u2014H,\nas of oxygen, O,\u2014i.e. into two volumes of hydrogen gas to one of oxygen.\n\nTaking the single hydrogen atom as the unit of weight as being the\nlightest known ponderable body, and calling this weight a microcrith,\nor standard of the smallest of this order of excessively small weights,\nthis is equivalent to saying that the weight of an oxygen atom is equal\nto 16 microcriths, and as water is composed of one such atom plus two of\nhydrogen, the weight of its molecule ought to be 16 + 2 = 18, which is in\nfact the exact ratio in which the weight of a volume of steam, or water\nin the form of gas, is heavier than an equal volume of hydrogen.\n\nThis key unlocks the whole secret of the chemical changes and\ncombinations by which matter assumes all the various forms known to us in\nthe universe.\n\nThus oxygen enters into a great variety of combinations forming different\nsubstances, but always in the proportion which is either 16, or some\nmultiple of 16, such as 32, 48, 64. That is, either 1, 2, 3, or 4 atoms\nof oxygen unite with other atoms to form the molecules from which these\nother substances are made.\n\nOne atom of oxygen weighing 16 microcriths combines, as we have seen,\nwith two atoms of hydrogen weighing 2, to form a molecule of water\nweighing 18 mc. In like manner one atom of oxygen, 16 mc., combines with\none of carbon, which weighs 12 mc., to form a molecule of carbonic oxide\nweighing 28 mc.; and two of oxygen, 32 mc., with one of carbon, 12 mc.,\nto form a molecule of carbonic dioxide weighing 44 mc.\n\nThe same applies to all elementary substances. Thus hydrogen, two atoms\nof which combine with one of oxygen to form water, combines one atom to\none with chlorine to form the molecule of hydrochloric acid, which weighs\n36\u00b75 mc., being the united weights of one atom of chlorine, 35\u00b75 mc.,\nand one of hydrogen, 1 mc. These, with hundreds of similar instances,\nare the results not of theories as to molecules and atoms, but of actual\nfacts, ascertained by innumerable experiments made independently by\ncareful observers over long periods of years, many of them dating back\nto the labours of the alchemists of the middle ages in pursuit of gold.\nThe atomic theory is the child and not the parent of the facts, and is\nindeed nothing but the summary of the vast variety of experiments which\nled up to it, as Newton\u2019s law of gravity is of the facts known to us\nwith regard to the attractions and motions of matter in the mass. But as\nNewton\u2019s law enables us to predict new facts, to calculate eclipses and\nthe return of comets beforehand, and to compile nautical almanacs; so the\nnew chemistry, based on the atomic theory, affords the same conclusive\nproof of its truth by enabling us in many cases to predict phenomena\nwhich are subsequently verified by experiment, and to infer beforehand\nwhat combinations are possible, and what will be their nature.\n\nThe actual existence, therefore, of molecules and atoms is as\nwell-ascertained a fact, as that of cwts. and lbs., or of planets and\nstars, of solar systems and nebul\u00e6.\n\nThe researches of chemists have succeeded in discovering about 70\nsubstances, of which the same may be said as of the oxygen and hydrogen\ninto which water is decomposed, viz. that they cannot be decomposed\nby any known process, and must therefore be considered as ultimate\nand elementary. Their atoms differ widely in size and weight: that of\nmercury, for instance, being 200 times heavier than that of hydrogen, and\nthe weights varying from 1 mc. for the hydrogen atom, up to 240 for that\nof uranium. When we call them elementary substances, we merely mean that\nwe know no means of decomposing them. It is possible that all of them may\nbe compounds which we cannot take to pieces of some substratum of uniform\nmatter, and it is remarkable that the weight of nearly all of these\nelementary atoms is some simple multiple of that of hydrogen, pointing to\ntheir being all combinations of one common substratum of matter; but this\nis merely conjecture, and in the present state of our knowledge we must\nassume these 66 or 71 ultimate particles or atoms to be the indivisible\nunits out of which all the complicated puzzle of the material universe\nis put together. They are not all equally important to us. Of the 71\nelementary substances enumerated in chemical treatises, 5 are doubtful,\nand 30 to 35 of the remainder are either known only to chemists in minute\nquantities, or exist in nature in small quantities, having no very\nmaterial bearing upon man\u2019s relation to matter. The most important are\noxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon. Oxygen diluted by nitrogen gives\nus the air we breathe, combined with hydrogen the water we drink, and\nwith metals and other primitive bases the solid earth on which we tread.\nCarbon again is the great basis of organised matter and life, to which it\nleads up by a variety of complex combinations with oxygen, hydrogen, and\nnitrogen.\n\nThe qualities and relations of elementary atoms afford a subject of great\ninterest, but of such vast extent that those who wish to understand it\nmust be referred to professed works on modern chemistry. For the present\npurpose it is sufficient to say that the following conclusions are firmly\nestablished.\n\nAll the various forms of matter are composed of combinations of primitive\natoms which form molecules, the molecules being neither more nor less\nthan very small pieces of ordinary matter.\n\nThe qualities of this matter, or, what is the same thing, of its\nmolecules, depend partly on the qualities of the atoms, which are\nsomething quite distinct from those of the molecules, and partly on their\nmode of aggregation into molecules, affecting the form, size, stability,\nand other attributes of the molecule.\n\nAll matter, down to the smallest atom, has definite weight and is\nindestructible. No man by taking thought can add the millionth of a\nmilligramme to the weight of any substance, or make it either more or\nless than the sum of the weights of its component factors, any more than\nhe can add a cubit to his stature. When Shelley sang of the cloud,\n\n    I change, but I cannot die,\n\nhe enunciated a scientific axiom of the first importance. Creation, in\nthe sense of making something out of nothing, is a thing absolutely\nunknown and unknowable to us. If we say we _make_ a ship or a\nsteam-engine, we simply mean that we transform existing matter and\nexisting energies into new combinations, which give results convenient\nfor our purpose. So if we talk of making a world, our idea really is\nthat if our powers and knowledge were indefinitely increased we might be\nable, given the atoms and energies with their laws of existence, to put\nthem together so as to produce the desired results. But how the atoms and\ntheir inherent laws got there is a question as to which knowledge, or\neven conceivability, is impossible, for it altogether transcends human\nexperience.\n\nBefore finally taking leave of atoms it may be well to state shortly\nthat science, not content with having proved their existence and weighed\nthem in terms of the lightest element, the hydrogen atom, has attempted,\nnot without success, to solve the more difficult problem of their real\ndimensions, intervals, and velocities. This problem has been attacked by\nClausius, Sir W. Thomson, Clerk Maxwell, and others, from various sides:\nfrom a comparison with the wave-lengths of light; with the tenuity of\nthe thinnest films of soap-bubbles just before they burst, and when\nthey are presumably reduced to a single layer of molecules; and from the\nkinetic theory of gases, involving the dimensions, paths, and velocities\nof elastic bodies, constantly colliding, and by their impacts producing\nthe resulting pressure on the confining surface. All these methods\ninvolve such refined mathematical calculations that it is impossible to\nexplain them popularly, but they all lead to nearly identical results,\nwhich involve figures so marvellous as to be almost incomprehensible.\nFor instance, a cubic centimetre of air is calculated to contain 21\ntrillions of molecules\u2014i.e. 21 times the cube of a million, or 21\nfollowed by 18 ciphers; the average distance between each molecule equals\n95 millionths of a millimetre, which is about 25 times smaller than the\nsmallest magnitude visible under a microscope; the average velocity of\neach molecule is 447 metres per second; and the average number of impacts\nreceived by each molecule in a second is 4,700 millions.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nETHER.\n\n    Ether proved by light\u2014Light-waves\u2014Elasticity of ether\u2014Its\n    universal diffusion\u2014Influences molecules and atoms\u2014Is influenced\n    by them\u2014Successive orders of the infinitely small\u2014Illustrated\n    by the differential and integral calculus\u2014Explanation of this\n    calculus\u2014Theory of vortex rings.\n\n\nPerhaps the best way to convey some idea of this order of magnitudes\nto the ordinary reader is to quote Sir W. Thomson\u2019s illustration, that\nif we could suppose a cubic inch of water magnified to the size of the\nearth\u2014i.e. to a sphere 24,000 miles in circumference\u2014the dimensions of\nits ultimate particles, magnified on the same scale, or, as he expresses\nit, its degree of coarse-grainedness, would be something between the size\nof rifle-bullets and cricket-balls.\n\nExtraordinary as these dimensions are, they are not more so than those\nat the opposite extremity of the scale, where the distance of stars\nand nebul\u00e6 has to be measured by the number of thousand years their\nlight, travelling at the rate of 192,000 miles per second, takes to\nreach us. Infinitely small, however, as those dimensions appear to our\noriginal conceptions derived from our natural senses, they are certain\nand ascertained facts, if not as to the precise figures, yet beyond all\ndoubt as to the orders of magnitude. In dealing with them also we are to\na great extent on familiar ground. Molecules are nothing more nor less\nthan small pieces of ordinary matter; and atoms are also matter, for they\nobey the law of gravity, have definite weights, and build up molecules as\nsurely as molecules build up ordinary matter, and as squared stones build\nup pyramids.\n\nBut to understand the constitution of the material universe we must\ngo a step further, part from the familiar world of sense, and deal\nwith an all-pervading medium, which is at the same time matter and not\nmatter, which lies outside the laws of gravity, and yet obeys other laws\nintelligible and calculable by us; of which it may be said we know it and\nwe know it not. We call it Ether.\n\nEther is a medium assumed as a necessary consequence from the phenomena\nof light, heat, and electricity\u2014primarily from those of light. Respecting\nlight two facts are known to us with absolute certainty.\n\n1st. It traverses space at the rate of 192,000 miles per second.\n\n2nd. It is propagated not by particles actually travelling at this rate,\nbut, like sound through air, by the transmission of waves.\n\nThe first fact is known from the difference of time at which eclipses of\nJupiter\u2019s satellites are seen according as the earth is at the point of\nits orbit nearest to or farthest from Jupiter\u2014i.e. from the time light\ntakes to traverse the diameter of the earth\u2019s orbit, which is about 180\nmillions of miles; and this velocity of light is confirmed by direct\nexperiments, as by noting the difference of time between seeing the\nflash and hearing the sound of a gun, which gives the velocity of light\ncompared with the known velocity of sound.\n\nThe second fact is equally certain from the phenomena of what are called\ninterferences, when the crest of one wave just overtakes the hollow of\na preceding one, so that, if the two waves are of equal magnitude, the\noscillations exactly neutralise one another, and two lights produce\ndarkness. This is shown in a thousand different ways, and for all the\ndifferent colours depending on different waves into which white light\nis analysed when passed through a prism. It is a certain result of\nwave-motion, and of wave-motion only, and therefore we know without a\ndoubt that light is propagated by waves.\n\nBut waves imply a medium through which waveforms are transmitted, for\nwaves are nothing but the rhythmic motion of something which rises and\nfalls, or oscillates symmetrically about a mean position of rest, slowly\nor quickly according to the less or greater elasticity of the medium.\nThe waves which run along a large and slack wire are large and slow,\nthose along a small and tightly stretched wire are small and quick; and\nfrom the data we possess as to light, its velocity of transmission,\nits refraction when its waves pass from one medium into another of\ndifferent density, and from the distance between the waves as shown by\ninterference, it is easy to calculate the lengths and vibratory periods\nof the waves, and the elasticity of the medium through which such waves\nare transmitted.\n\nThe figures at which we arrive are truly extraordinary. The dimensions\nand rates of oscillations of the waves which produce the different\ncolours of visible light have been measured and calculated with the\ngreatest accuracy, and they are as follows:\n\nDIMENSIONS OF LIGHT-WAVES.\n\n    +---------------+---------------+-----------------------+\n    |   Colours     |No. of waves in|No. of oscillations in |\n    |               |    one inch   |     one second        |\n    +---------------+---------------+-----------------------+\n    |Red            |    39,000     | 477,000,000,000,000   |\n    |Orange         |    42,000     | 506,000,000,000,000   |\n    |Yellow         |    44,000     | 535,000,000,000,000   |\n    |Green          |    47,000     | 577,000,000,000,000   |\n    |Blue           |    51,000     | 622,000,000,000,000   |\n    |Indigo         |    54,000     | 658,000,000,000,000   |\n    |Violet         |    57,000     | 699,000,000,000,000   |\n    +---------------+---------------+-----------------------+\n\nThe elasticity of this wonderful medium is even more extraordinary.\n\nThe rapidity with which wave-motion is transmitted depends, other things\nbeing equal, on the elasticity of the medium, which is proportional to\nthe square of the velocity with which a wave travels through it. As the\nvelocity of the sound-wave in air is about 1,100 feet in a second, and\nthat of the light-wave about 192,000 miles in the same time, it follows\nthat the velocity of the latter is about a million times greater than\nthat of the former, and if the density of ether were the same as that of\nair, its elasticity must be about a million million times greater. But\nthe elasticity is the same thing as the power of resisting compression,\nwhich in the case of air we know to be about 15 pounds to the square\ninch; so that the ether, if equally dense, would balance a pressure of\n15 million million pounds to the square inch\u2014that is, it would require\na pressure of about 750 millions of tons to the square inch to condense\nether to the density of air. On the other hand, its density, if any,\nmust be so infinitesimally small that the earth moving through it in its\norbit with a velocity of 1,100 miles a minute suffers no perceptible\nretardation.\n\nConsider what this means. Air blowing at the rate of 100 miles an hour\nis a hurricane uprooting trees and levelling houses. If ether were as\ndense as air the resistance to the earth in passing through it would\nbe 600 times that of going dead to windward in a tropical hurricane.\nBut in point of fact there is no sensible resistance, for the earth and\nheavenly bodies move in their calculated paths according to the law of\ngravity exactly as they would do if they were moving in a vacuum. Even\nthe comets, which consist of such excessively rare matter that when one\nof them got entangled among the satellites of Jupiter it did not affect\ntheir movements, are not retarded by the ether, or so slightly, that any\nretardation in the case of one or two of them is suspected rather than\nproved. But, if the ether has no weight, how can we call it material,\nweight being, as we have seen, the invariable test and measure of all\nmatter down to the minutest atom? And yet how can we deny its existence\nwhen it is demonstrably necessary to account for undoubted facts revealed\nto us every day by the prism, the spectroscope, electricity, and chemical\naction, and deductions from these facts based on the strict laws of\nmathematical calculation? For the existence of the ether is not based\nonly on the phenomena of light: it is an equally necessary postulate to\nexplain those of heat, electricity, and chemical action. We must conceive\nof our atoms and molecules as forming systems and performing their\nmovements, not in vacuo, but in an all-pervading medium of this ether, to\nwhich they impart, and from which they receive, impulses.\n\nThese impulses are excessively minute, and when they occur in irregular\norder they produce no appreciable effect; but when the vibrations of\nthe ether keep time with those of the atoms, the multitude of small\neffects becomes summed up into one considerable enough to produce great\nchanges. Just so a rhythmic succession of tiny ripples may set a heavy\nbuoy oscillating, and the footfalls of a regiment of soldiers marching\nover a suspension-bridge may make it swing until it breaks down, while\na confused mob could traverse it in safety. The latter affords a good\nillustration of the way in which molecular structures may be broken down,\nand their atoms set free to enter into other combinations, by the action\nof heat, light, or chemical rays beyond the visible end of the spectrum.\n\nConversely the phenomena of the spectroscope all depend on the fact that\nthe vibrations of atoms and molecules can propagate waves through the\nether, as well as absorb ether-waves into their own motions, and thus\ngive spectra distinguished by bright or dark lines peculiar to each\nsubstance, by which it can be identified. Whatever ether may be, this\nmuch is certain about it: it pervades all space. That it extends to the\nboundaries of the infinitely great we know from the fact that light\nreaches us from the remotest stars and nebul\u00e6, and that in this light\nthe spectroscope enables us to detect waves propagated and absorbed by\nthe very same vibrations of the same familiar atoms at these enormous\ndistances as at the earth\u2019s surface. Glowing hydrogen, for instance, is a\nprincipal ingredient of the sun\u2019s atmosphere and of those distant suns we\ncall stars, and it affects the ether and is affected by it exactly in the\nsame manner as the hydrogen burning in an ordinary gas-lamp.\n\nIn the direction also of the infinitely small, ether permeates the\napparently solid structure of crystals, whose molecules perform their\nlimited and rigidly definite movements in an atmosphere of it, as is\nshown by the fact that in so many cases light and heat penetrate through\nthem. A whole series of remarkable phenomena arise from the manner in\nwhich the vibrations of ether which cause light are affected by the\nstructure of the molecules of crystals through which they pass. In\ncertain cases they are what is called polarised, or so affected that\nwhile they pass freely if the crystal is held in one direction, they\nare stopped if it is turned round through an angle of 90\u00b0 to its former\nposition, so that one and the same crystal may be alternately transparent\nand non-transparent. It would seem as if its structure were like that\nof wood, grained, and more easy to penetrate if cut with the grain\nthan against it, so that when a ray of light attempted to penetrate,\nits vibrations were resolved into two, one with the grain which got\nthrough, the other against it which was suppressed; so that the emerging\nray, which entered with a circular vibration, got out with only one\nrectilinear vibration parallel to the diameter which coincided with the\ngrain.\n\nOther crystals of more complicated structure affect transmitted light in\na more complex way, developing a double polarity very similar to that\ninduced in the iron filings when brought under the influence of the\ntwo poles of the magnet. With this polarised light the most beautiful\ncoloured rings can be produced from the waves of the different colours\ninto which the white light has been analysed in passing through the\ncrystal, which alternately flash out and disappear as the crystal is\nturned round its axis, and which present a remarkable analogy to the\ncurves into which the iron filings form themselves under the single or\ndouble poles of the magnet.\n\nThe importance of this will appear afterwards, but for the present it\nis sufficient to show that the waves of ether which cause light really\npenetrate through the molecules of crystals, but in doing so may be\naffected by them.\n\n[Illustration: RINGS OF POLARISED LIGHT, UNIAXIAL CRYSTALS. RINGS OF\nPOLARISED LIGHT, BIAXIAL CRYSTALS.]\n\nIn dealing with these excessively small magnitudes it may assist the\nreader who has some acquaintance with mathematics in forming some\nconception of them, to refer to that refinement of calculation, the\ndifferential and integral calculus. And even the non-mathematical reader\nmay find it worth while to give a little attention in order to gain\nsome idea of this celebrated calculus which was the key by which Newton\nand his successors unlocked the mysteries of the heavens. The first\nrough idea of it is gained by considering what would happen if, in a\ncalculation involving hundreds of miles, we neglected inches. Suppose we\nhad a block of land to measure, 300 miles long and 200 wide; as there\nare, say, 5,000 feet in a mile, and the error from omitting inches could\nnot exceed a foot, the utmost error in the measurement of length could\nnot exceed 1/1500000th, and in width 1/1000000th part of the correct\namount. In the area of 300 \u00d7 200 = 60,000 square miles, the limit of\nerror would, by adding or omitting the rectangle formed by multiplying\ntogether these two small errors, not exceed 1/1500000 \u00d7 1/1000000 =\n1/1500000000000th part. It is evident that the first error is an\nexcessively small part of the true figure, and the second error a still\nmore excessively small part of the first error. But, as we are dealing\nwith abstract numbers, we can just as readily conceive our initial error\nto be the 1/100th or 1/1000th of an inch, as one inch; and, in fact,\ndiminish it until it becomes an infinitesimally small or evanescent\nquantity. In doing so, however, it is evident that we shall make the\nsecond error such a still more infinitesimally small fraction of the\nfirst that it may be considered as altogether disappearing.\n\nThe first error is called a differential of the first order and denoted\nby _d_, the second a differential of the second order denoted by d\u2082.\nThus if we call the base of our rectangle _x_ and its height _y_, the\narea will be _xy_. Let us suppose _x_ to receive the addition of a very\nsmall increment _dx_, and _y_ the corresponding increment _dy_, what\nwill be the corresponding increment of the area, or _d.xy_? Clearly\nthe difference between the old area _xy_ and the new area (_x_ + _dx_)\nmultiplied by (_y_ + _dy_). This multiplication gives\n\n     _x_ + _dx_\n     _y_ + _dy_\n    ------------\n    _xy_ + _ydx_\n           _xdy_ + dx.dy\n    ------------------------------\n    _xy_ + _xdy_ + _ydx_ + _dx.dy_\n\nThe difference between this and _xy_ is _xdy_ + _ydx_ + _dx.dy_. But\n_dx.dy_ is, as we have seen, a differential of the second order and may\nbe neglected. Therefore _dxy_ = _xdy_ + _ydx_. In like manner _dx_\u00b2 =\n(_x_ + _dx_)\u00b2-_x_\u00b2 = 2_xdx_ + _dx_\u00b2, which last term may be neglected,\nand _dx_\u00b2 = 2_xdx_. In this way the differentials of all manner of\nfunctions and equations of symbols representing dimensions and motions\nmay be found. Conversely the wholes may be considered as made up of an\ninfinite number of these infinitely small parts, and found from them by\nsumming up or integrating the differentials. Thus if we had the equation\n\n    _xdy_ + _ydx_ = 2_zdz_\n\nwe know that the left-hand side is the differential of _xy_, and\ntherefore that by integrating it we shall get _xy_; while the right side\nis the differential of _z_\u00b2 which we shall get by integrating it. The\nrelation expressed therefore is that _xy_ = _z_\u00b2, or, in other words,\nthat a rectangle whose sides are _x_ and _y_ exactly equals a square\nwhose side is _z_.\n\n[Illustration: FIG. 1. FIG. 2. FIG. 3.]\n\nThe use of this device in assisting calculation will be apparent if we\ntake the case of an area bounded by a curved line. We cannot directly\ncalculate this area, but we can easily tell that of a rectangle. Now it\nis evident that if we inscribe rectangles in this area ABC, the more\nrectangles we inscribe the less will be the error in taking their sum\nas equal to the curved area. This is apparent if we compare fig. 2 with\nfig. 3. Suppose we take a point P on the curve, call BN = _x_ and PN =\n_y_, and suppose N_n_ to be _dx_, the differentially small increment of\n_x_, and _pq_ = _dy_ the corresponding small increment of _y_. The area\nof the rectangle P_qn_N = PN \u00d7 N_n_ = _ydx_, and differs from the true\ncurvilinear area P_pn_N by less than the little rectangle of P_q_ \u00d7 _pq_\nor of _dx_._dy_. But, as we have seen, if we push our division to the\nfirst infinitesimal order, or make N_n_ and _pq_ differentials of _x_ and\n_y_, _dx_._dy_ may be neglected\u2014i.e. multiply the number of rectangles\nindefinitely, and the sum of their areas will differ from the true area\ninclosed by the curve by an error which is evanescent.\n\nIf then _x_ and _y_ are connected by some fixed law, as must be the case\nif the extremity of _y_ traces out some regular curve, the relation\nbetween them may be expressed by an equation, which will remain one\nhowever often it may be differentiated or again integrated, and whatever\nmodifications or transformations it may receive by mathematical processes\nwhich do not alter the essential equality of the two sides connected by\nthe symbol of equality =. Thus by differentiating and casting off as\nevanescent all differentials of a lower order than that which we are\nworking with, we may arrive at forms of which we know the integrals, and\nby integrating get back to the results in ordinary numbers, which we were\nin search of but could not attain directly.\n\nThe same thing will apply if our symbols are more numerous, and if\nthey express relations of motion as well as of space, or, in fact, any\nrelations which are governed by fixed laws expressible by equations. If\nI have succeeded in conveying to the readers any idea of this celebrated\ncalculus, they will perceive what an analogy it presents to the idea\nof modern physical and chemical science, that of molecules, atoms, and\nether, forming differentials of successive orders of the infinitely\nsmall. It is certainly most remarkable that while the former was a\npurely intellectual idea based on mathematical abstractions, and which\nwas invented and worked as an instrument for solving the most intricate\nastronomical problems for nearly two centuries, without a suspicion\nthat it represented any objective reality: the latter idea, based on\nactual experiment, seems to show that differentials and integrals have\ntheir real counterpart in nature and represent fundamental facts in the\nconstitution of the universe.\n\nThose who are of a mystic or metaphysical turn of mind may discern in\nthis, arguments for matter and laws of matter being after all only\nmanifestations of one universal, all-pervading mind; but in following\nsuch speculations we should be deserting the solid earth for cloudland,\nand passing the limit of positive knowledge into the region where\nreflections of our own hopes, fears, religious feelings, and poetical\nsentiments form and dissolve themselves against the background of the\ngreat unknown. For the present, therefore, I confine myself to pointing\nout how these undoubted truths of mathematical science, which have\nverified themselves in the practical form of enabling us to predict\neclipses and construct nautical almanacs, correspond with and throw light\nupon the equally certain facts of this succession of infinitely small\nquantities of successive orders in the constitution of matter.\n\nAn attempt has recently been made, based on abstruse mathematical\ncalculations, to carry our knowledge of the constitution of matter one\nstep further back, and identify atoms with ether. This is attempted by\nthe vortex theory of Helmholz, Sir W. Thomson, and Professor Tait. It is\nsingular how some of the ultimate facts discovered by the refinements\nof science correspond with some of the most trivial amusements. Thus\nthe blowing of soap-bubbles gives the best clue to the movement of waves\nof light, and through them to the dimensions of molecules and atoms;\nand the collision of billiard-balls, knocked about at random, to the\nmovements of those minute bodies, and the kinetic theory of gases. In the\ncase of the vortex theory the idea is given by the rings of smoke which\ncertain adroit smokers amuse themselves by puffing into the air. These\nrings float for a considerable time, retaining their circular form, and\nshowing their elasticity by oscillating about it and returning to it if\ntheir form is altered, and by rebounding and vibrating energetically,\njust as two solid elastic bodies would do, if two rings come into\ncollision. If we try to cut them in two, they recede before the knife, or\nbend round it, returning, when the external force is removed, to their\noriginal form without the loss of a single particle, and preserving\ntheir own individuality through every change of form and of velocity.\nThis persistence of form they owe to the fact that their particles are\nrevolving in small circles at right angles to the axis or circumference\nof the larger circle which forms the ring; motion thus giving them\nstability, very much as in the familiar instance of the bicycle. They\nburst at last because they are formed and rotate in the air, which is a\nresisting medium; but mathematical calculation shows that in a perfect\nfluid free from all friction these vortex rings would be indivisible and\nindestructible: in other words, they would be atoms.\n\nThe vortex theory assumes, therefore, that the universe consists of one\nuniform primary substance, a fluid which fills all space, and that what\nwe call matter consists of portions of this fluid which have become\nanimated with vortex motion. The innumerable atoms which form molecules,\nand through molecules all the diversified forms of matter of the material\nuniverse, are therefore simply so many vortex rings, each perfectly\nlimited, distinct, and indestructible, both as to its form, mass, and\nmode of motion. They cannot change or disappear, nor can they be formed\nspontaneously. Those of the same kind are constituted after the same\nfashion, and therefore are endowed with the same properties.\n\nThe theory is a plausible one, and the reputation of its authors must\ncommand for it respectful consideration; but it is as yet a long way\nfrom being an established theory which can be accepted as a true\nrepresentation of facts. In the first place it is based solely on\nmathematical theory, and not, as in the case of atoms and light-waves,\nupon actual facts of weight and measurement tested by experiment, and to\nwhich mathematical reasoning affords only an aid and supplement. No one\nhas proved the existence of such a medium or of such vortex rings, much\nless weighed or measured them.\n\nMoreover the theory is open to some very obvious objections. How can\naggregations of imponderable matter acquire weight, and become subject\nto the law of gravity, which, as we have seen, is one of the essential\nand permanent qualities of atoms? If a cubic millionth of a millimetre of\nether formed into a big vortex ring of, say, an atom of mercury, has a\nweight equal to 200 times that of an atom of hydrogen, which itself has\na definite weight, why has it no weight in its original form? And if it\nhad weight, however small, how could the enormous mass of ether filling\nall space produce no perceptible effect on bodies, even of attenuated\ncometic vapour, revolving through it with immense velocities? Again,\nhow could these innumerable vortex rings be formed out of the ether\nwithout disturbing the uniformity and continuity of the medium, which\nare essential for the propagation of the light-waves through it? And how\ncould the motions requisite to form the vortex rings be impressed on them\n_de novo_ consistently with the principle of the conservation of energy?\nEnergy can no more be created out of nothing than matter, by any process\nknown in nature or conceivable by the human intellect; and to assume it\nis simply a more refined manner of falling back on the supernatural,\nwhich is itself only a more refined manner of saying that we know nothing.\n\nFor the present, therefore, we must be content with atoms and ether as\nthe ultimate terms of our knowledge of the material or quasi-material\ncomponents of the universe.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nENERGY.\n\n    Energy of motion and of position\u2014Energy can be\n    transformed, not created or destroyed\u2014Not created by free\n    will\u2014Conservation of mechanical power\u2014Convertibility of\n    heat and work\u2014Nature of heat\u2014The steam-engine\u2014Different\n    forms of energy\u2014Gravity\u2014Molecular energy\u2014Chemical\n    energy\u2014Dynamite\u2014Chemical affinities\u2014Electricity\u2014Produced\n    by friction\u2014By the voltaic battery\u2014Electric currents\u2014Arc\n    light\u2014Induction\u2014Magnetism\u2014The magnetic needle\u2014The electric\n    telegraph\u2014The telephone\u2014Dynamo-electric engine\u2014Accumulator.\n\n\nThose ultimate elements, however, atoms and ether, only give us what may\nbe called the dead half of the universe, which could not exist without\nthe constant presence of the animating principle of force or energy.\nEnergy is the term generally adopted in the language of science, for\nforce is apt to be associated with human effort and with actual motion\nproduced, while energy is a comprehensive term, embracing whatever\nproduces or is capable of producing motion. Thus, if we bend a cross-bow,\nthe force with which it is bent may either reappear at once in the flight\nof the arrow, if we let go the string; or it may remain stored up, if we\nfix the string in the notch, ready to reappear when we pull the trigger.\nIn the former case it is called energy of motion, in the latter energy of\nposition. It is important to realise this distinction clearly, for many\nof the ordered and harmonious arrangements of the universe depend on the\npolarity, or conflict with alternate victories and defeats, between those\ntwo forms of energy.\n\n[Illustration]\n\nThus if A B is a pendulum suspended at the point A, if we move it from\nits position of rest A C to A B and hold it there, its whole energy\nis that of position. If we let it go it swings backwards and forwards\nbetween the positions _A B_ and _A D_, and but for the resistance of the\nair and the friction at the point of suspension, it would so swing for\never. But in thus swinging what happens? From A B to A C energy of motion\nkeeps gaining on energy of position, until when the pendulum reaches C,\nit has annihilated it. Energy of position has entirely disappeared, and\nthe whole original force expended in raising the pendulum to A B exactly\nreappears in the force or momentum of the pendulum at its lowest point.\nBut is this victory final? By no means; energy of position having touched\nbottom, gathers, like Ant\u00e6us, fresh vigour for the contest, and from the\nposition A C upwards it gains ground on its adversary until when the\npendulum reaches A D it is in its turn completely victorious.\n\nThe same alternation between energy of motion and of position takes place\nin all rhythmical movements such as waves, which, whether in water, air,\nor ether, are propagated, as in the case of the pendulum, by particles\nforced out of their position of rest and oscillating between the two\nenergies.\n\n[Illustration]\n\nThus if waves run along an elastic wire A B, the particle P, which has\nbeen forced into the position _p_, oscillates backwards and forwards\nbetween _p_ and _q_, beginning with nothing but energy of position\nat _p_, losing it all for energy of motion at P, and regaining it at\n_q_. All wave-motions therefore\u2014that is to say, all sound, light, and\nheat\u2014depend on this primitive polarity.\n\nIf we have got this definition of the two forms of energy clearly\ninto our heads, we shall be the better prepared for this further\ngeneralisation\u2014the grandest, perhaps, in the whole range of modern\nscience\u2014that energy, like matter, is indestructible, and can only be\ntransformed, but never created or annihilated.\n\nThis is at first sight a more difficult proposition to establish in\nthe case of energy than in that of matter. In the latter case we have\nnothing in our experience that can lead us to suppose that we have ever\ncreated something out of nothing; but in the former, our first impression\nundoubtedly is that we do create force. If I throw a stone at a bird I\nhave an instinctive impression that the force which projects the stone\nis the creation of my own conscious will; that I had the choice either\nto throw or not to throw; and that if I had decided not to throw, the\nimpelling force would never have existed. But, if we look more closely at\nthe matter, it is not really so. The chain of events is this: the first\nimpulse proceeds from the visual rays, which, concentrated by the lens of\nthe eye on the retina, give an image of the bird; this sends vibrations\nalong the optic nerve to the brain, setting in motion certain molecules\nof that organ; these again send vibrations along other nerves to certain\nmuscles of the arm and hand, which contract, and by doing so give out the\nenergy of movement which throws the stone. All this process is strictly\nmechanical; the eye acts precisely like a camera obscura in forming the\nimage; the nerve-vibrations, though not identical with those of the wires\nof an electric telegraph, are of the same nature, their velocity can be\nmeasured, and their presence detected by the galvanometer; the energy of\nthe muscle is stored there by the slow combustion of the food we have\neaten, in the oxygen of the air we have breathed. Take any of these\nconditions away, and no effort of the will can produce the result. If\nthe nerve is paralysed, or the muscle, from prolonged starvation, has no\nenergy left, the stone will not be thrown, however much we may desire to\nkill the bird.\n\nAgain, precisely the same circle of events takes place in numerous\ninstances without any intervention of this additional factor of conscious\nwill. We breathe mechanically, the muscles of the chest causing it\nto rise and fall like the waves of the ocean, without any deliberate\nintention of taking air into the lungs and exhaling it. Nay more, there\nare instances of what was at first accompanied by the sensation of\nconscious will, ceasing to be so when the molecular movements had made\nchannels for themselves, as when a piano-player, who had learned his\nnotes with difficulty, ends by playing a complicated piece automatically.\nThe case of animals also raises another difficulty. Suppose a retriever\ndog sees his master shoot at and miss a hare: shall he obey the\npromptings of his animal instinct and give chase, or those of his higher\nmoral nature which tell him that it is wrong to do so without the word\nof command? It is hard to see how this differs from the case of a man\nresisting or yielding to temptation; and how, if we assign conscious will\nto the man, we can deny it to the dog.\n\nReasoning from these premises, some philosophers have come to the\nconclusion that man and all animals are but mechanical automata, cleverly\nconstructed to work in a certain way fitting in with the equally\npreordained course of outward phenomena; and that the sensation of will\nis merely an illusion arising as a last refinement in the adjustment\nof the machinery. But here comes in that principle of duality or\npolarity, by which a proposition may be at once true and untrue, and\ntwo contradictory opposites exist together. No amount of philosophical\nreasoning can make us believe that we are altogether machines and not\nfree agents; it runs off us like water from a duck\u2019s back, and leaves us\nin presence of the intuitive conviction that to a great extent\n\n    Man is man and master of his fate.\n\nIf this be an illusion, why not everything\u2014evidence of the senses,\nexperiment, natural law, science, as well as morality and religion?\n\nTo pursue this farther would lead us far astray into the misty realm of\nmetaphysics, and I refer to it only as showing that the principle of the\nconservation of energy, standing as it does in apparent contradiction to\nour natural impressions, requires a fuller demonstration than the kindred\nprinciple of the indestructibility of matter.\n\n[Illustration]\n\nIn the case of ordinary mechanical power it had been long known that the\nintervention of machinery did not create force, but only transformed it.\nIf a weight of 1 lb., A, just balances a weight of 2 lb., B, by aid of a\npulley, and by the addition of a minute fraction, such as a grain, raises\nit 1 foot, it will be invariably found that A has descended 2 feet. In\nother words, 1 lb. working through 2 feet does exactly the same work\nas 2 lbs. working through 1 foot. And whatever may be the intervening\nmachinery the same thing holds good, and the work put in at one end comes\nout, neither more nor less, at the other, except for a minute loss due\nto friction and resistance of air. If a force equal to 1 lb. is made, by\nmultiplying the intermediate machinery, to raise a ton a foot from the\nground, exactly as much force must have been exerted as if the ton had\nbeen divided into 2,240 parts of 1 lb. each, and each part separately\nlifted.\n\nBut although energy cannot be created, at first sight it seems as if it\nmight be destroyed, as when the ton falls to the ground and seems to have\nlost all its energy, whether of motion or of position. But here science\nsteps in and shows us that it is not destroyed, but simply transformed\ninto another sort of motion, which we call heat.\n\nSome connection between mechanical work and heat had long been known, as\nin the familiar experiment of rubbing our hands together to warm them;\nand the practice known to most primitive races of obtaining fire by\ntwirling a stick rapidly in a hole drilled in a block of wood; a practice\ndescribed by the old Sanskrit word \u2018pramantha,\u2019 which means an instrument\nfor obtaining fire by pressure or friction, and which, translated into\nGreek, has been immortalised by the legend of Prometheus. But it was\nreserved for recent years, and for an English philosopher, Dr. Joule,\nto give scientific precision and generality to this idea, by actually\nmeasuring the amount of heat produced by a given amount of work, and\nshowing that they were in all cases convertible terms, so much heat for\nso much work, and so much work for so much heat. He did this by measuring\naccurately by a thermometer the heat added to a given amount of water by\nthe work done by a set of paddles revolving in it, set in rapid motion by\na known weight descending through a known space. The unit of work being\ntaken as that sufficient to raise 1 kilogramme through 1 metre, and that\nof heat as that required to raise the temperature of one kilogramme of\nwater by 1\u00b0 Centigrade, the relation between them, as found by a vast\nnumber of careful experiments, is that of 424 to 1. That is, one unit of\nheat is equal to 424 units of work.\n\nIn this, and all cases requiring scientific precision, it is better to\nuse the units of the metrical system than our clumsy English standards;\nbut it may be sufficient for the ordinary reader to take the metre,\nwhich is about 39\u00b737 inches, as practically a yard, and the kilogramme,\nwhich is 15,432 English grains, as practically equal to 2 lbs. This is\nsufficient to show the much greater energy of the invisible forces which\nact at minute distances, than that of gravity and other forces which do\nappreciable mechanical work, the energy of a weight falling from a height\nof more than 1,300 feet being only sufficient to heat its own weight by\n1\u00b0.\n\nThis proof of the convertibility of work into heat gives much greater\nprecision to our ideas respecting the real nature of heat and its kindred\nmolecular and atomic energies. Heat is clearly not a material substance,\nfor a body does not gain weight by becoming hotter. In the case of all\nponderable matter down to the atoms, which are only of the size of\ncricket-balls compared to that of the earth, any combination which adds\nmatter adds weight, and the weight of the product exactly equals the\nsum of the weights of the separate factors which have united to form\nit. Thus, if iron is burnt in oxygen gas, the product, oxide of iron or\nrust, weighs more than the original iron by just as much as the weight\nof the oxygen which has been consumed. But heat, light, and electricity\nadd nothing to the weight of a body when they are added to it, and take\nnothing away when they are subtracted. The inference is unavoidable that\nheat, like light, is not ponderable matter, but an energy transmitted\nby waves of the imponderable medium known as ether. This is confirmed\nby finding that when a ray from the sun is analysed by passing through\na refracting prism, one part of the spectrum shows light of various\ncolours, while another gives heat. The hottest part of the spectrum lies\nin the red and beyond it, showing that the heat-waves are longer, and\ntheir oscillations slower, than those of light. Heat-waves also may be\nmade to interfere, and to become polarised, in a manner analogous to the\nphenomena exhibited by those of light.\n\nThere can be no doubt, therefore, that heat, like light, is an energy\nor mode of motion, transmitted by waves of an imponderable ether, and\nthat it acts on the molecules and atoms of matter by the accumulated\nsuccessive impulses of those waves on the molecules and atoms which are\nfloating in it, or rather which are revolving in it, in definite groups\nand fixed orbits, like miniature solar systems or starry universes. We\ncan now see how heat performs work, and why work can be transformed into\nit.\n\nHeat performs work in two ways. First, it expands bodies\u2014that is, it\ndraws their molecules farther apart against the force of cohesion which\nbinds them together or keeps them moving in definite orbits at definite\ndistances. It is as if it increased the velocity, and therefore the\ncentrifugal force of a system of planets, and so caused them to revolve\nin wider orbits. The expansion of mercury in a thermometer affords a\nfamiliar instance of this effect of heat and the readiest measure of its\namount. Secondly, it increases the energy of the molecular motions, so\nthat they dart about, collide, and vibrate with greater force. Thus, as\nheat increases, evaporation increases, for molecules on the surface are\nprojected with so much force as to get beyond the sphere of the cohesive\nattraction which binds them to the system, and they dart off like comets\ninto space. Finally, as heat increases, and more and more work is done,\nagainst the centripetal force of cohesion, most substances, and doubtless\nall if we could get heat enough, are converted from solids into fluids,\nand ultimately into gases, in which latter state the molecules have got\naltogether beyond the sphere of their mutual attraction, and tend to\ndart off indefinitely in the direction of their own proper centrifugal\nmotions, unless confined, in which case they dart about, collide,\nrebound, and exercise pressure on the containing surface.\n\nConversely, if heat expands bodies, it is given out when they contract.\nThus the enormous quantity of heat poured out for millions of years by\nthe sun, is probably owing mainly to the mechanical force of contraction\nof the original cosmic matter condensing about the solar nucleus.\n\nAgain, when gases suddenly expand, their temperature falls, which is\nthe principle by which artificial ice is procured, and frozen beef and\nmutton are brought from America and Australia, producing, such are the\ncomplicated relations of modern society, agricultural depression, fall of\nrents, and a serious aggravation of the Irish question.\n\nAs an example of the converse proposition of the transformation of heat\ninto mechanical work, the steam-engine affords the aptest illustration.\nThe original power came from the sun millions of years ago, and did work\nby enabling the leaves of plants to overcome the strong mutual affinity\nof carbon and oxygen in the carbonic dioxide in the air, and store up the\ncarbon in the plant, where it remained since the coal era in the form of\nenergy of position. By lighting the coal, or in other words separating\nits molecules more widely by heat, we enable them to exert once more\ntheir natural affinity for oxygen, and burn, that is recombine into\ncarbonic dioxide. The heat thus produced turns water into steam, which\npasses through a cylinder, either into a condenser if the steam is at low\npressure, or into the outer air if it has been superheated and brought\nto a higher pressure than that of the atmosphere. The difference of the\npressure or elasticity of the steam in the boiler, and of the same steam\nwhen it is condensed or liberated, is available for doing work, and,\nbeing admitted and released alternately at the two ends of the cylinder,\ndrives a piston up and down, which, by means of cranks and shafts,\nturns a wheel or does whatever work is required of it. In doing this,\nheat disappears, being converted into work, and the amount of heat would\nexactly equal that into which the work would be converted according to\nJoule\u2019s law, if it could all be utilised without the loss necessarily\nincurred by friction, radiation, and the still more important absorption\nof latent heat required to convert water at boiling-point into vapour\nof the same temperature. This latter is not really an annihilation of\nthe heat, but its conversion into work done in separating the molecules\nagainst the force of cohesion. The whole heat, therefore, is transformed\ninto work, mainly molecular work in tearing molecules asunder, and the\nresidue into mechanical work turning spindles and driving locomotives and\nsteamboats.\n\nThe intermediate machinery here, including the water in the boiler, is\nmerely the means of applying the original energy in the particular way\nwe desire. The essential thing is the transformation of a certain amount\nof heat into work by passing, in accordance with the laws of heat, from\na hotter to a colder body. The last condition is indispensable, for the\nnature of heat is to seek an equilibrium by passing from hot to cold, and\nno work can be got out of it in the reverse way. On the contrary, work\nmust be expended and turned into heat to restore the temperature which\nhas run down. The case is analogous to that of water, which, if raised by\nevaporation or stored up in reservoirs at a level above the sea, can be\nmade to turn a wheel while it is running down; but when it has all run\ndown to the sea level, can do no more work, and can only be pumped up\nagain to a higher level by the expenditure of fresh work. Owing to this\ntendency of heat we can see that, although matter and energy are to all\nappearance indestructible, the present constitution of the universe is\nnot eternal. The animating energy of heat is always tending to obliterate\ndifferences of temperature, and bring all energy down to one uniform dead\nlevel of a common average, in which no further life, work, or motion are\npossible. Fortunately this consummation is far off, and for many tens\nor hundreds of millions of years the inhabitants of this tiny planet\nmay feel fairly secure, and need not, like the late Dr. Cumming, of\nmillenarian celebrity, introduce breaks in the leases of their houses to\nprovide against the contingency of the world coming to an end at an early\ndate.\n\nDismissing, then, to the remote future any speculations as to the failure\nof this essential element of active energy, let us rather consider the\nvarious protean forms in which it shows itself.\n\n1. The energy of visible motion, which, as we have seen, may be\ntransformed into an equivalent amount of energy of position.\n\n2. Molecular energy, which causes the cohesive attraction, repulsion, and\nother proper motions of these minute and invisible particles of matter.\n\n3. Energy of heat and light, which are transmitted by waves of the\nassumed imponderable medium called ether.\n\n4. Energy of chemical action, by which the small ultimate particles of\nponderable matter, called atoms, separate and combine into the various\ncombinations of molecules constituting visible matter, in obedience to\ncertain affinities, or inherent attractions and repulsions.\n\n5. Electrical energy, which includes magnetism as a special instance.\n\nAll these forms of energy may exist, as in the case of visible energy,\neither as energies of motion or of position, and the actual constitution\nof the universe is due in a great measure to the alternation of these\ntwo energies. Thus all wave-motion, whether it be of the waves of the\nsea grinding down a rocky coast, of the air transmitting sound, or of\nether transmitting light and heat, are instances of energies of motion\nand of position, conflicting with one another and alternately gaining\nthe victory. So also a pound of gunpowder or dynamite has an immense\nenergy of position, which, when its atoms are let loose from their\nmutual unstable connection by heat or percussion, manifests itself in an\nenormous energy of motion, which is more or less destructive according to\nthe rapidity with which the atoms rush into new combinations.\n\nLet us consider these different energies a little more in detail. The\nenergy of visible motion is manifested principally by the law of gravity,\nunder which all matter attracts other matter directly as the mass and\ninversely as the square of the distance. It is a universal and uniform\nlaw of matter, and can be traced without change or variation from the\nminutest atom up to the remotest double star. The energy of living force\nmight, at first sight, be considered as another of the commonest causes\nof visible motion; but, when closely analysed, it will be found that what\nappears as such is only the result of molecular energy of position stored\nup in the living body by chemical changes during the slow combustion of\nfood, and that nothing has been added by any hypothetical vital force.\nThe conscious will seems to act in those cases simply as the signalman\nwho shows a white flag may act on a train which has been standing on the\nline waiting for it. The energy which moves the train is due entirely\nto the difference of heat, which has been developed by the combustion\nof coal, between the steam in the boiler and the steam when allowed to\nescape into the air; and this energy came originally from the sun, whose\nrays enabled the leaves of growing plants to decompose carbonic dioxide\nand store up the carbon in the coal. Of this force of gravity causing\nvisible motion we may say that it is comparatively a very weak force,\nwhich acts uniformly over all distances great or small.\n\nMolecular energies, on the other hand, act with vastly greater force, but\nat very small distances, and appear sometimes as attractive and sometimes\nas repulsive forces. Thus solid bodies are held together by a force of\ncohesion which is very powerful, but acts only at very small distances,\nas we may see if we break a piece of glass and try to mend it by pressing\nthe broken edges together. We cannot bring them near enough to bring the\nmolecular attraction again into play and make the broken glass solid.\nBut the same glass acts with repellent energy if another solid tries\nto penetrate it, so that we can walk on a glass floor without sinking\ninto it. Heat also, by increasing the distance between the molecules,\nfirst weakens the cohesive force so that the solid becomes fluid, and\nfinally overcomes it altogether, so that it passes into the state of gas\nin which the centripetal attraction of the molecules is extinguished,\nand they tend to recede further and further from each other under the\ncentrifugal force of their own proper velocities. The great energy of\nmolecular forces will be apparent from the fact that a bar of iron, in\ncooling 10\u00b0 Centigrade, contracts with a force equal to a ton for each\nsquare inch of section, as exemplified in the tubular bridge across the\nMenai Straits, where space has to be allowed for the free contraction and\nexpansion of the iron under changes of temperature.\n\nChemical energy, or the mutual attractions and repulsions of atoms, is\neven more powerful than that of molecules. It displays itself in their\nelective affinities, or what may be called the likes and dislikes,\nor loves and hatreds, of these ultimate particles. Perhaps the best\nillustration will be afforded by that \u2018latest resource of civilisation,\u2019\ndynamite. This substance, or to give it its scientific name,\nnitro-glycerine, is composed of molecules each of which is a complex\ncombination of nine atoms of oxygen, five of hydrogen, three of nitrogen,\nand three of carbon. Of these, oxygen and hydrogen have a strong affinity\nfor one another, as is seen by their rushing together whenever they get\nthe chance, and by their union forming the very stable compound, water.\nOxygen and carbon have also a very strong affinity, and readily form\nthe stable product carbonic dioxide gas. Nitrogen, on the other hand,\nis a very inert substance; its molecule consists of two atoms of itself\nwhich are bound together by a strong affinity, and can only be coaxed\nwith difficulty into combinations with other elements, forming compounds\nwhich are, as it were, artificial structures, and very unstable. We\nsee this in the air, which consists mainly of oxygen and nitrogen, but\nnot in chemical combination, the oxygen being simply diluted by the\nnitrogen, as whisky is with water, with the same object of diluting the\ntoo powerful oxygen or too potent alcohol, and enabling the air-breather\nor whisky-drinker to take them into the system without burning up the\ntissues too rapidly. If nitrogen had more affinity for oxygen it would\ncombine chemically with it, and we should live in an atmosphere of\nnitrous oxide, or laughing gas.\n\nThe molecule, therefore, of nitro-glycerine resembles a house of cards,\nso nicely balanced that it will just stand, but will fall to pieces at\nthe slightest touch. When this is supplied by a slight percussion the\nmolecule falls to pieces and is resolved into its constituent atoms,\nwhich rush together in accordance with their natural affinities, forming\nan immense volume of gas, partly of water in the form of steam where\noxygen has combined with hydrogen, and partly of carbonic dioxide where\nit has combined with carbon, leaving the nitrogen atoms to pair off, and\nrevert to their original form of two-atom molecules of nitrogen gas.\nIt is as if ill-assorted couples, who had been united by matrimonial\nbonds tied by the man\u0153uvres of Belgravian mothers, found themselves\nsuddenly freed by a decree of divorce _a vinculo matrimonii_, and rushed\nimpetuously into each other\u2019s arms, according to the laws of their\nrespective affinities. So striking is the similitude that one of Goethe\u2019s\nbest-known novels, the \u2018Wahlverwandschaften,\u2019 takes its title from the\nhuman play of these chemical reactions. The enormous energy developed\nwhen these atomic forces are let loose and a vast volume of gas almost\ninstantaneously created, is attested by the destructive force by which\nthe hardest rocks are shattered to pieces and the strongest buildings\noverthrown.\n\nThese loves and hatreds, or, as they are termed, chemical affinities and\nrepulsions of the atoms, are the principal means by which the material\nstructure of the universe is built up from the original elements.\nThe earth, or solid crust of the planet we inhabit, consists mainly\nof oxidised bases, and is due to the affinity of oxygen for silicon,\ncalcium, aluminium, iron, and other primary elements of what are called\nmetals. This affinity enables them to make stable compounds, which, under\nthe existing conditions of temperature and otherwise, hold together and\nare not readily decomposed. Water in like manner, in all its forms of\nwaves, seas, lakes, rivers, clouds, and invisible vapour, is due to the\naffinity between oxygen and hydrogen forming a stable compound. Salt\nagain is owing to the affinity of chlorine for sodium, and so for nearly\nall the various products with which we are familiar, oxygen and nitrogen\nin the air we breathe being almost the only elements which exist in their\nprimary and uncombined state in any considerable quantities, and form\nan essential part of the conditions which render our planet a habitable\nabode for man and other forms of life.\n\nWe shall see presently something more of the nature of these affinities,\nand the laws by which they act; but before entering on this branch\nof the subject we must consider the remaining form in which the one\nindestructible energy of the universe manifests itself, viz. that of\nelectricity.\n\nElectricity is the most subtle and the least understood of these forms.\nIn its simplest form it appears as the result of friction between\ndissimilar substances. Thus if we rub a glass rod with a piece of silk,\ntaking care that both are warm and dry, we find that the glass has\nacquired the property of attracting light bodies, such as little bits\nof paper, or balls of elder-pith. Other substances, such as sealing-wax\nand amber, have the same property. Pursuing our research further we find\nthat this influence is not, like that of gravity, uniform and always\nacting in the same direction, but of two kinds, equal and opposite. If we\ntouch the pith-ball by the excited glass rod, it will after contact be\nrepelled; but if we bring the ball which has been excited by contact with\nthe glass within the influence of a stick of sealing-wax which has been\nexcited by rubbing it with warm dry flannel, the ball instead of being\nrepelled is attracted.\n\nConversely, if the pith-ball has been first touched by excited\nsealing-wax, it will afterwards be repelled by excited sealing-wax\nand attracted by excited glass. It is clear, therefore, that there\nare two opposite electricities, and that bodies charged with similar\nelectricities repel, and with unlike electricities attract, one another.\nFor convenience, one of these electricities, that developed in glass,\nis called positive, and the other negative; and it has been clearly\nproved that one cannot exist without the other, and that whenever\none electricity is produced, just as much is produced of an opposite\ndescription. If positive electricity is produced in glass by rubbing it\nwith silk, just as much negative electricity is produced upon the silk.\n\nAnother primary fact is that some substances are able to carry away\nand diffuse or neutralise this peculiar influence called electricity,\nwhile others are unable to do so and retain it. The former are called\nconductors, the latter non-conductors. Thus, glass is an insulator or\nnon-conductor, while metal is a conductor of electricity; and the reason\nwhy the substances rubbed together, as glass and silk, must be dry is\nthat water, in all its forms, is a conductor which carries away the\nelectricity as fast as it is produced.\n\nThese facts have given rise to a theory\u2014which is after all not so\nmuch an explanation as a convenient mode of expressing the facts\u2014of\nthe existence of two opposite electric fluids, which, in the ordinary\nor unexcited body, are combined and neutralise one another, but are\nseparated by friction, and flow in opposite directions, accumulating at\nopposite poles, or, it may be, one being accumulated at one pole, while\nthe other is diffused through some conducting medium and lost sight of.\nThe active electricity, be it positive or negative, thus accumulated at\none pole, and retained there by the substance in contact with it being a\nnon-conductor, disturbs by its influence the electrical equilibrium of\nany body brought near to it, separates its two fluids, and attracts the\none opposite to itself. This attraction draws the light body towards it\nuntil contact ensues, when the electric fluid of the excited body flows\ninto the smaller one, so that its opposite electricity is expelled, and\nit is in the same condition as its exciter, and therefore liable to be\nrepelled by a similar exciter, or attracted by an opposite one which\nformerly repelled it.\n\nIt is evident, without going further, that there is a great analogy\nbetween electrical energy and those of heat and of chemical affinity.\nThe same mechanical work\u2014viz. friction\u2014which generates heat, generates\nelectricity. The chief difference seems to be that friction may be\ntransformed into heat when the same substances are rubbed together, as\nin the case of obtaining fire by the friction of wood; but electricity\ncan only be obtained by friction between dissimilar substances. Thus\nno electricity is obtained by rubbing glass upon glass, or silk upon\nsilk, or upon glass covered with silk, though a slight difference of\ntexture is sometimes sufficient to separate the electric fluids. Thus\nif two pieces of the same silk ribbon are rubbed together, lengthways,\nno electricity is produced, but if crossways, one is positively, and the\nother negatively, electrified. In this respect the analogy is evident to\nchemical affinity, which, in like manner, only acts between dissimilar\nbodies.\n\nIn order, however, to carry the proof of the identity of these forms of\nenergy beyond the sphere of vague analogy, we must follow up electricity\nfar beyond the simple manifestations of the glass rod and sealing-wax,\nand pursue it to its origin, in the transformations of chemical action\nand mechanical work, in the voltaic battery, the electric telegraph, the\ntelephone, and the dynamo.\n\nThe voltaic battery, in its simplest form, is a trough containing an acid\nliquid in which pairs of plates of different metals are immersed. It is\nevident that if the action of the acid on each metal were precisely the\nsame, equal quantities of each would be dissolved in the acid, and the\nequilibrium of chemical energies would not be affected. But, the action\nbeing different, this equilibrium is disturbed, and if the sum of these\ndisturbances for a number of separate pairs of plates can be accumulated,\nit will become considerable. This is done by connecting the plates of the\nsame metal in each cell by a metallic wire covered by some non-conducting\nsubstance. There are, therefore, two wires, one to the right hand, the\nother to the left, the loose extremities of which are called the poles\nof the battery. If we test these poles as we did the glass rod and stick\nof sealing-wax, we find that one pole is charged with positive and the\nother with negative electricity. In other words, the chemical energy,\nwhose equilibrium was disturbed by the unequal action of the acid on the\nplates of different metals, has been transformed into electrical energy\nmanifesting itself, as it always does, under the condition of two equal\nand opposite polarities. If we connect these two poles with one another\nthe two electricities rush together and unite, and there is established\nwhat is called an electrical current circulating round the battery.\nAs the chemical action of the acid on the metals is not momentary but\ncontinuous, the acid taking up molecule after molecule of the metal,\nso also the current is continuous. When we call it a current, the term\nis used for the sake of convenience, for as the current, as we shall\npresently see, will flow along the wire or other conducting substance\nfor immense distances, as across the Atlantic, with a velocity of many\nthousands of miles per second, we can, no more than in the case of light,\nfigure it to ourselves as an actual transfer of material particles swept\nalong as by a river running with this enormous velocity, but necessarily\nas a transmission of some form of motion travelling by waves or tremors\nthrough the all-pervading ether in which the atoms of the conducting\nwire are floating. Be this as it may, the effect of these electric\ncurrents is very varied and very energetic. It can produce intense heat,\nfor if, instead of uniting the two poles, we connect them by a thin\nplatinum wire, it will, in a few seconds, become heated to redness. If\nthe connecting wire is thicker, heat will equally be generated but less\nintense, thus maintaining the analogy to the current which rushes with\nmore impetuosity through a narrow than through a wide channel. If the\npoles are tipped with a solid substance like carbon, whose particles\nremain solid under great heat, when they are brought nearly together\nintense light is produced and the carbon slowly burns away. This produces\nwhat is called the arc light, which gives such a strong illuminating\npower and is coming into general use for lighting up large spaces.\n\nAnother transformation is back again into chemical energy, which is shown\nby the power of the electric current to decompose compound substances.\nIf, for instance, the poles of a battery are plunged into a vessel\ncontaining water, the molecules of the water will be decomposed and\nbubbles of oxygen gas will rise from the positive, and of hydrogen from\nthe negative, pole.\n\nAnother effect of electrical currents is that of attraction and repulsion\non one another. If two parallel wires, free to move, carry currents\nflowing in the same direction as from positive to negative, or _vice\nvers\u00e2_, they will attract one another; if in opposite directions, they\nwill repel. Electrical currents also work by way of induction, that is,\nthey disturb the electrical equilibrium of bodies brought within their\ninfluence and induce currents in them. Thus, if we have two circular\ncoils of insulated wire placed near each other, one on the right hand,\nthe other on the left, and connect the extremities of the right-hand coil\nwith the poles of a battery, when the connection is first made and the\ncurrent begins to flow, a momentary current in the opposite direction\nwill pass through the left-hand coil. This will cease, and as long as\nthe current continues to flow through the right-hand coil there will be\nno current through the other; but if we break the contact between the\nright-hand coil and the battery, there will be again a momentary current\nthrough the left-hand coil, but this time in the same direction as the\nother. The same effect will be produced if, instead of making and\nbreaking contact in the right-hand coil, we keep the current constantly\nflowing through it, and make the right-hand coil alternately approach\nand recede from the other coil. In this case, when the right-hand coil\napproaches, it induces an opposite current in the left-hand one; and when\nit recedes, one in the same direction as that of the primary.\n\nThese phenomena of induction prepare us to understand the nature of\nmagnets, and the magnetic effects produced by electrical currents. If\nan insulated wire is wrapped round a cylinder of soft or unmagnetic\niron, and a current passed through the wire, the cylinder is converted\ninto a magnet and becomes able to sustain weights. If the current\nceases, the cylinder is no longer a magnet, and drops the weight. A\nmagnet is therefore evidently a substance in which electric currents are\ncirculating at right angles to its axis, and a permanent magnet is one in\nwhich such currents permanently circulate from the constitution of the\nbody without being supplied from without. The earth is such a magnet, and\nalso iron and other substances, under certain conditions.\n\nThis being established, it is easy to see why an electrical current\ndeflects the magnetic needle. If such a needle is suspended freely near\na wire parallel with it, on a current being passed through the wire it\nmust attract if similar, or repel if dissimilar, the currents which are\ncirculating at right angles to the axis of the needle, and thus tend to\nmake the needle swing into a position at right angles with the wire so\nthat its currents may be parallel to that of the needle. This is the\nreason why the needle in its ordinary condition points to the north\nand south, or rather to the magnetic poles of the earth, because its\ncurrents are influenced by the earth currents which circulate parallel to\nthe magnetic equator. The deviation of the needle from this direction,\ncaused by any other current, like that passed along the wire, will depend\non the strength of the current, which may be measured by the amount of\ndeflection of the needle. The direction in which the needle deflects,\nviz. whether the north pole swings to the right or to the left, will\ndepend on the direction of the current through the wire. The direction\nof the circular currents which form a magnet is such that if you look\ntowards the north pole of a freely suspended cylindrical magnet\u2014i.e. if\nyou stand on the north of it and look southwards\u2014the positive current\nwill ascend on your right hand, or on the west side, and descend on the\neast. It follows that unlike poles must necessarily attract, and like\npoles repel one another, for in the former case the circular currents\nwhich face each other are going in the same, and in the latter in\nopposite directions.\n\nThe reader is now in a position to understand the principle of the\nelectric telegraph, that wonderful invention which has revolutionised\nhuman intercourse and, to a great extent, annihilated space and time. It\noriginated in the discovery made by Oersted, a Danish _savant_, that the\neffect of an electric current was to make a magnet swing round, in the\nendeavour to place itself at right angles to it. The conducting power of\ninsulated copper wire is such that it practically makes no difference\nwhether one of the wires connected with the pole of a battery is two\nfeet or 2,000 miles in length, and the earth, being a conducting medium,\nsupplies an equal extension from the other pole, so that a closed\nelectric circuit may be established across the Atlantic as easily as\nwithin the walls of a laboratory.\n\nIf, therefore, a magnetic needle is suspended at the American end, it\nwill respond to every electrical current, and to any interruption,\nrenewal, or reversal of that current established in England. The needle\nmay thus be made to swing to the right or left, by forming or reversing a\ncurrent through the wire; and it will return to its position whenever the\ncurrent is interrupted, and repeat its movement whenever the current is\nrenewed. In fact it may be made to move like the arm of the old-fashioned\ntelegraph, or of a railway signal. It only remains to have a machine by\nwhich the operator can form and interrupt currents rapidly, and a code by\nwhich certain movements of the needle stand for certain letters of the\nalphabet, and you have the electric telegraph.\n\nThere are many ingenious applications of the machinery, but in principle\nthey all resolve themselves into transformations of energy. Chemical\nenergy is transformed into electric energy, and that again into\nmechanical work in moving the needle.\n\nThe telephone is another instance of similar transformations. Here spoken\nwords create vibrations of the air, which cause corresponding vibrations\nin a thin plate or disc of metal at one end, which are conveyed by\nintermediate machinery to a similar disc at the other end, whose\nvibrations cause similar vibrations in the air, reproducing the spoken\nwords at a distance which may be a great many miles from the speaker.\n\nThe great inventions of modern science which have so revolutionised\nsociety are all instances of the laws of the conservation of energy. Man\nmakes the powers of nature available for his purposes by transforming\nthem backwards and forwards, now into one, now into another form of\nenergy, as required for the result he wishes to attain. He wants\nmechanical power to pump water or drive a locomotive or steamboat: he\ngets it from the steam-engine, by transforming the energy of heat in\ncoal, which came ages ago from the energy of chemical action produced\nby the sun\u2019s rays in the green leaves of growing plants. He wants to\nsend messages in a few seconds across the Atlantic: he does it by\ntransforming chemical energy into electricity in a voltaic battery,\nsending its vibrations along a conducting wire, and converting it at\nthe far end into mechanical power, making a magnetic needle turn on its\naxis and give signals. If, instead of sending a message, he wants to\nhold a conversation at a distance, he invents the telephone, by which\nsound-vibrations of air are transformed into vibrations of a disc, then\ninto electric currents, then into vibrations of a distant disc, and\nfinally back again to spoken words. Or, if he wants light, he turns\nelectricity into it by tipping the poles of his battery with carbon and\nbringing them close together.\n\nThe latest inventions of electrical science\u2014the dynamo and the\naccumulator\u2014afford remarkable instances of this convertibility of one\nprimitive energy into different forms. In the instance just quoted of\nobtaining light from electricity by the voltaic battery, the cost has\nhitherto proved an obstacle to its adoption. The electrical energy is\nall obtained from the transformation of the heat produced in the cells\nby the chemical action on the metal used, which is commonly zinc. Now,\nthe heat of combination of zinc with oxygen is only about one-sixth of\nthat of coal, while the cost of zinc is about twenty times as great.\nTheoretically, therefore, energy got by burning zinc costs 120 times\nas much as that got by burning coal. Practically the difference is not\nnearly so great, for there is very little loss of energy in the battery\nby the process of conversion, while the best steam-engine cannot convert\ninto work as much as twenty per cent, of the heat energy in the coal\nconsumed. Still, after making every allowance, the cost of energy from\nzinc remains some twenty times as great as from coal, so that unless some\nprocess is found for obtaining back the zinc as a residual product, there\nis no prospect of this form of electricity being generally available for\nlight or for mechanical power.\n\nThe dynamo is an instrument invented for the mechanical generation of\nelectricity by taking advantage of the principle that electrical energy\nis produced by moving magnets near coils of wire, or coils of wire near\nmagnets. A current is thus started by induction, and, once started,\nthe mechanical power exerted in making the magnet or coils revolve is\ncontinually converted into electricity until the accumulated electrical\nenergy becomes very powerful. The original energy comes of course from\nthe coal burned in the steam-engine which makes the magnet or coils\nrevolve.\n\nThe principle of the conservation of energy is well illustrated by the\nfact that as the dynamo generates an electric current if made to revolve,\nconversely it may be made to revolve itself if an electric current is\nsent through it from an exterior source. It is, therefore, available not\nonly as a source of light in the former case, but as a direct source of\nmechanical power in the latter. It is on this principle that electric\nengines are constructed and electric railways are worked. Here also it\nis a question of cost and convenience, for you can only get electricity\nenough either to light a street or to drive an engine, by an original\nsteam-engine or other motive power to work the dynamo, and a system of\nconducting wires to convey the electricity to the place where the light\nor power is wanted. Where the motive power is supplied by nature, as in\nthe case of tidal or river currents or waterfalls, it is quite possible\nthat power may be obtained in this way to compete with that obtained\ndirectly from the steam-engine; but there are as yet considerable\npractical difficulties to be overcome in the transmission of any large\namount of energy for long distances.\n\nTo overcome some of these difficulties the accumulator has been invented,\nwhich affords yet another remarkable instance of the transformation of\nenergy. It consists of two lead plates immersed in acidulated water. When\na strong electrical current is sent through the water, it decomposes it,\nthe oxygen going to one lead plate and the hydrogen to the other. The\noxygen attacks the lead plate to which it goes, forming peroxide of lead;\nwhile the hydrogen reduces any oxide in the other plate, producing pure\nlead, and leaving a film of surplus hydrogen on the surface. The charging\ncurrent is then reversed, so that the latter plate is now attacked and\nthe former one reduced, when the current is again reversed. By continuing\nthis process the surfaces of both lead plates become porous, so that they\npresent a large surface, and can therefore hold a great deal of peroxide\nof lead. The charging current being now broken, the oxygen which has been\nforcibly separated from the liquid seeks to recombine with hydrogen;\nand if the two lead plates are joined by a wire, this effort of the\noxygen generates an electrical current in the opposite direction to the\noriginal one, which is the current utilised. Electricity is thus stored\nup in a portable box, where it can be kept till wanted, when it is drawn\nout by connecting the plates, and as a large amount of energy has been\naccumulated the current which is produced lasts for a considerable time.\n\nUnfortunately accumulators are bulky, heavy, and expensive, and nearly\nhalf the energy of the original charging current is lost in obtaining the\nreversed or working current. They are therefore not as yet adapted for\ngeneral use, though perfectly capable of supplying either light or motive\npower, for both which purposes they have been successfully applied in\nspecial cases. The future both of electric power and electric lighting\nis now reduced entirely to a question of cost; and though it is hard to\nbeat gas and the steam-engine, with cheap coal, and air and water for\nnothing, it is possible that by using natural sources of power to move\ndynamos, and by obtaining zinc back as a residual product in batteries,\nelectricity may in certain cases carry the day.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nPOLARITY IN MATTER.\n\n    Ultimate elements of universe\u2014Built up by polarity\u2014Experiment\n    with magnet\u2014Chemical affinity\u2014Atomic poles\u2014Alkalies\n    and acids\u2014Quantivalence\u2014Atomicity\u2014Isomerism\u2014Chemical\n    stability\u2014Thermochemistry\u2014Definition of atoms\u2014All matter built\n    up by polar forces.\n\n\nI almost fear that by this time some of my readers may think that I have\nseduced them under false pretences to read long chapters of dry science,\nwhen they had been led from the introduction to anticipate discussions\non the more immediately interesting topics of morals, religions, and\nphilosophies. My excuse must be that these scientific subjects are really\nof extreme interest in themselves and indispensable as a solid basis for\nthe superstructure to be raised on them. How can I attempt to show that\nthe law of polarity extends to the more complex problems of human thought\nand life, if I fail in establishing its application to the simpler case\nof inorganic force and matter? It must be recollected also that among\nthe primitive polarities is that of author and reader. It is my part to\nendeavour to present the leading facts and laws of the material universe\nin such plain and popular language that the ordinary reader who has\nneither time nor faculty for special studies may apprehend them clearly\nwithout excessive effort, or extraordinary intelligence. But it is the\nreader\u2019s part to supply a fair average amount of attention, and above\nall to feel an interest in interesting matters. Cleverness and curiosity\nare very much convertible terms, and the clearest exposition is thrown\naway on the torpid mind which views the marvellous universe in which he\nhas the privilege to live, with the stupid apathy of the savage, taking\nthings as they come without caring to know anything about them.\n\nFor the reader\u2019s part of the work I am not responsible; but for my own\nI am, and I proceed therefore to give in my own way, and with the best\nfaculty that is in me, a clear summary of such of the fundamental facts\nand laws of nature as seem necessary for the work I have undertaken.\n\nFrom the preceding chapters we are now able to realise what are the\nultimate elements of the material universe, and it remains to show how\nthey are put together. The elements are ether, energy, and matter.\n\nFirst, ether: a universal, all-pervading medium, imponderable or\ninfinitely light, and almost infinitely elastic, in which all matter,\nfrom suns and planets down to molecules and atoms, float as in a\nboundless ocean, and whose tremors or vibrations, propagated as waves,\ntransport the different forms of energy, light, heat, and electricity,\nacross space.\n\nSecondly, energy: a primitive, indestructible something, which causes\nmotion and manifests itself under its many diversified forms, such\nas gravity, mechanical work, molecular and atomic forces, light,\nheat, electricity, and magnetism, all of which are merely Protean\ntransformations of the one fundamental energy, and convertible into each\nother.\n\nThirdly, matter: the ultimate elements of this are atoms, which\ncombined form molecules, or little pieces of ordinary matter with all\nits qualities, which are the bricks used in building all the varied\nstructures of the organic and inorganic worlds. Of these atoms some\nseventy have never yet been divided, and therefore, although we may\nsuspect that they are merely combinations or transformations of one\noriginal matter, we must be content for the present to consider them\nas elementary. In like manner we may suspect that matter is in reality\nonly another form of energy, and that the impression of solidity is\ngiven by the action of a repellent force which is very energetic at\nshort distances. If this were established we might look forward to the\ngeneralisation that energy was the one reality of nature; but for the\npresent it is a mere speculation, and we must be content with over\nseventy elementary atoms as ultimate facts. In any case this much is\ncertain, that matter, like energy, is indestructible. We have absolutely\nno experience of either of them being created or annihilated. Nay, more,\nwe have no faculties to enable us even to conceive how something can\nbe made out of nothing, and all we know, or can ever know, about these\nprimitive constituents of the universe is of their laws of existence,\ntheir evolutions and their transformations.\n\nMinute as the atoms and molecules are, we must conceive of them not as\nstationary and indissolubly connected, but rather as little solar systems\nin which revolving atoms form the molecule, and revolving molecules form\nthe matter, held together as separate systems by their proper energies\nand motions, until some superior force intruding breaks up the system and\nsets its components free to form new combinations.\n\nWhat is the principle which thus forms, un-forms, and re-forms the\nvarious combinations of atomic and molecular systems by which the world\nis built up from its constituent elements? It is polarity.\n\nAs I began with the illustration of the magnet introducing order and\nharmony into the confused mass of iron filings, let me take this other\nillustration from the same source. If we place an iron bar in contact\nwith the pole of a magnet, the bar becomes itself a magnet with opposite\npoles to the original one, so that as opposite poles attract, the iron\nbar adheres to it. Bring a lump of nickel in contact with the further end\nor free pole of the iron bar, and the nickel also will be magnetised and\nadhere. Let the lump of nickel be as large as the pole of the iron bar\nis able to support, and now bring a lump of soft iron near this pole. It\nwill drop the nickel and take the iron. This is exactly similar to those\ncases of chemical affinity in which a molecule drops one of its factors\nand takes on another to which its attraction is stronger. If iron rusts\nin water it is because the oxygen atom drops hydrogen to take iron just\nas the magnet dropped nickel.\n\nThe polarity of chemical elements is attested by the fact that when\ncompounds are decomposed by the electric current, the different\nelementary substances appear at different poles of the battery. Thus,\noxygen, chlorine, and non-metallic substances appear at the positive\npole; while hydrogen, potassium, and metals generally, appear at the\nnegative one. The inference is irresistible that the atoms had in each\ncase an opposite polarity to that of the poles to which they were\nattracted. This is confirmed by the fact that the radicals, i.e. the\nelementary atoms or groups of atoms which have opposite polarities,\ncombine readily; while those which have the same polarity, as two\nmetals, have but slight affinity for each other. Like therefore attracts\nunlike, as in all cases of polarity, and the greater the degree of\nunlikeness the stronger is the attraction. Thus, the radicals of all\nalkalies are electro-positive, and appear at the negative pole of a\nbattery; while those of acids are all electro-negative, and the higher\neach stands in its respective scale of polarity the more strongly does it\nshow the peculiar qualities of acid or alkali and the more eagerly does\nit combine with its opposite.\n\nAcids and alkalies are, in fact, all members of the same class of\ncompounds called _hydrates_, because a single atom of hydrogen is a\ncommon feature in their composition. This atom is coupled with a single\natom of oxygen, which may be conceived of as the central magnet holding\nthe hydrogen atom at one pole, while at the other it holds either a\nsingle atom of some metallic element, such as potassium or sodium, or a\ngroup consisting of such an element together with atoms of oxygen, so\nconstituted as to present a single pole to the attraction of the central\noxygen atom. Thus, if K stands for kali or potassium, N for nitrogen, O\nfor oxygen, and H for hydrogen, we may have the compounds\n\n    H\u2014O\u2014K\n\nand\n\n        {  O}\n        { / }\n    H\u2014O\u2014{N  }.\n        { \\ }\n        {  O}\n\nThe former is the molecule of potassic hydrate, which is the most\ncaustic or strongest of alkalies; the latter, that of nitric acid, the\nmost corrosive or powerful of acids. These are the extremes of the\nseries, of which there are many intermediate members, all being more\nor less alkaline, that is caustic and turning litmus-paper blue, when\nthe third element is a simple metallic atom; and acid, corrosive, and\nturning litmus-paper red, when it is a compound radical of a group of\nmetallic and oxygen atoms. This shows to what an extent whole classes of\nsubstances may have a general resemblance in their constitution, and yet\ndiffer most widely in their qualities by the substitution of one element\nfor another.\n\nThese special qualities may be made to diminish and finally disappear by\nmixing the two opposite substances, or, as it is called, neutralising an\nacid by an alkali or an alkali by an acid. Thus, if hydrochloric acid,\nHCl, be poured into a solution of sodic-hydrate, Na\u2014O\u2014H, the alkaline\nqualities of the latter diminish and finally disappear, the result of the\nneutral solution being water, H\u2014O\u2014H, and sodic-chloride, or common salt,\nNa\u2014Cl. It is evident that this result has been produced by the hydrogen\natom in H\u2014Cl and the sodium atom in Na\u2014O\u2014H changing places, the former\npreferring to unite with oxygen to form water, while the displaced sodium\natom finds a refuge with chlorine. The oxygen atom has dropped sodium and\ntaken hydrogen, just as the magnet dropped nickel and took iron.\n\nThis polarity of chemical elements manifests itself in different ways.\nIn some cases it appears like that of a magnet, in which there are\ntwo opposite poles, and two only, one at each end. Thus oxygen (O) is\nbipolar, and its atom holds together two atoms of hydrogen (H) in forming\nthe molecule of water, which may be represented as H+-O+-H, which is\nequivalent to [Illustration]. Others again, like hydrogen and chlorine,\nseem to have only a single pole, as in the case of electricity in an\nexcited glass rod, and have to create for themselves the opposite pole,\nwhich is the indispensable condition of all polarity, by induction in\nanother body. Thus, muriatic or hydrochloric acid is formed by the union\nof a single atom of chlorine, which is strongly negative, with a single\natom of hydrogen, in which it appears to have induced a positive pole:\nthough the combination is not a very stable one, for if an element with\na stronger positive pole of its own is presented to the chlorine, it\ndrops the hydrogen, just as the magnet drops the nickel. Other atoms are\nmultipolar, and seem as if made up of more than one magnet, or rather as\nif the atom had regular shape like a triangle, square, or pentagon, and\neach angle was a pole, thus enabling it to unite with three, four, five,\nor more atoms of other substances. Thus, one atom of nitrogen unites with\nthree of hydrogen, one of carbon with four of hydrogen, and so on. Every\nsubstance has, therefore, what is called its \u2018quantivalence,\u2019 or power of\nuniting with it a greater or less quantity of other atoms, and conversely\nthat of replacing in combinations other atoms, or groups of atoms, the\nsum of whose quantivalence equals its own. Thus, one atom of carbon,\nwhich has four poles, combines with four atoms of hydrogen or chlorine,\nwhich is unipolar, but with only two of oxygen, which are bipolar; while\nthe oxygen atom combines with two of hydrogen, and that of chlorine with\none atom only of hydrogen. The analogy between the single atomic and\nelectrical poles on the one hand, and the dual and magnetic poles on\nthe other, will be evident if we consider what occurs if a pith-ball,\nelectrified positively, is brought near a similar ball electrified\nnegatively. They attract each other, and the one becomes the pole of\nthe other; but if separated, each carries with it its own electrical\ncharge. But the separate balls or poles, though no longer influencing\neach other, are not isolated, for each draws by induction an electrical\ncharge opposite to its own to the extremity of the nearest conductor, and\nthus creates for itself a new or second pole. Polarity, in fact, involves\nopposition of relations, or two poles, and electrical only differs from\nmagnetic polarity in the fact that in the latter the two poles are in the\nsame body, while in the former they are in separate bodies.\n\nFor pith-balls read atoms, and we have an explanation of the univalent\natoms like those of chlorine and sodium which act as single poles; and\nthis is confirmed by the fact that such atoms are never found isolated,\nbut are always associated in a molecule with at least one other atom\nwhich forms the opposite pole of the molecular system. Bivalent or\nmagnetic atoms, on the other hand, which have two poles, like those of\nmercury and zinc, may constitute a complete polar system and be found\nisolated, and form the class of molecules which consist of single atoms.\n\nThis conception of the polarity of atoms enables us to understand the way\nin which the almost infinite variety of substances existing in the world\nis built up from a comparatively few simple elements. Atoms and radicals,\nwhich are multipolar, can attract and form molecules with as many other\natoms or radicals as they have poles. This is called their degree of\natomicity, which is the same as their quantivalence; and each of these\natoms or radicals may be replaced by some other atom or radical, which\npresents to any pole a more powerful polarity. Thus, compounds may be\nbuilt up of great and varied complexity, for the quality of any compound\nmay be greatly altered by any one of the substitutions at any one of\nthe poles. And the molecules, or small specimens of matter, may be thus\nbuilt up into very complex aggregations of atoms, some single molecules\ncontaining more than a hundred atoms. Thus, carbon has four poles, or\nis quadrivalent, and its atoms possess the power of combining among\nthemselves to an almost indefinite extent and forming groups of great\nstability. Thus, carbon radicals may be formed in very great number, each\naffording a nucleus upon which compound radicals may be built up, so\nthat carbon has been aptly called the skeleton of almost all the varied\ncompounds of the more complex forms of inorganic matter as well as the\nprincipal foundation of organic life.\n\nNor is this all, for the qualities of substances depend not only on\nthe qualities of their constituent elements, but also on the manner in\nwhich these elements are grouped. Two substances may have exactly the\nsame chemical composition and yet be very different. We may suppose that\nthe same elements affect us differently according as they are grouped.\nThus, the same bricks may be built up either into a cube or pyramid,\nwhich forms are extremely stable and can only be taken in pieces brick\nby brick; or into a Gothic arch, which all tumbles to pieces if a\nsingle brick forming the keystone is displaced. As an instance of this,\nbutyric acid, which gives the offensive odour to rancid butter, has\nexactly the same composition as acetic ether, which gives the flavour\nto a ripe apple. They consist of the same number of atoms of the same\nelements\u2014carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen\u2014united in the same proportions.\nThis applies to a number of substances, and is called Isomerism, or\nformation of different wholes from the same parts.\n\nThe principle of polarity, therefore, aided by the subsidiary conditions\nof quantivalence, atomicity, and isomerism, gives the clue to the\nconstruction of the inorganic world out of some seventy elementary\nsubstances. Of the substances thus formed, whether of molecules or\nof combinations of molecules, some are stable and some unstable. As\na rule the simpler combinations are the most stable, and instability\nincreases with complexity. Thus the diamond, which is merely a crystal\nof pure carbon, is very hard and indestructible; while dynamite, or\nnitro-glycerine, which is a very complex compound, explodes at a touch.\n\nThe stability of a substance depends partly on the stable structure of\nits component elements, and partly on their mutual affinity being strong\nenough to keep them together in presence of the attractions of other\noutside elements, which, in the case of most natural substances at the\nsurface of the earth, consist principally of air and water. Thus, the\nrocks, earths, metallic oxides, water, carbonic dioxide, and nitrogen\nare extremely stable, and resist decomposition, or chemical union with\nother substances, with great energy. With regard to all substances this\nlaw holds good, that the tendency is to fall back from a less stable to\na more stable condition, and that such a falling back is always attended\nwith an evolution of heat; while, on the other hand, heat is always\nabsorbed and disappears whenever the elements of a more stable substance\nare made to enter into a less stable condition. Thus, when wood burns,\nthere is a falling back from a substance unstable, on account of its\naffinity for the oxygen in the air, into the stable products, carbonic\ndioxide and water, and the heat evolved is the effect of this fall.\n\nAs the tendency of all changes is towards stability we arrive at the\nfollowing law, which is one of the most recent generalisations of modern\nchemistry: In all cases of chemical change the tendency is to those\nproducts whose formation will determine the greatest evolution of heat.\n\nThis, however, does not imply that the tendency may not be overcome and\nunstable products formed, for just as a weight may be lifted against\nthe force of gravity, so may the chemical tendency be overcome by a\nsufficient energy acting against it. Heat is the principal means of\nsupplying this energy, and by increasing it sufficiently not only\nare molecules drawn apart and most solids converted into fluids and\nfinally into gases, but there is reason to believe that at extremely\nhigh temperatures, such as may prevail in the sun, all matter would be\nresolved into isolated or dissociated atoms. Thus, water at a temperature\nof 1,200\u00b0 is resolved into a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen atoms no\nlonger chemically united into water-molecules; and iodine-vapour, which\nbelow 700\u00b0 degrees consists of molecules of two atoms, above that\ntemperature consists of single atoms only.\n\nThe subject might be pursued further, but enough has been said for the\npresent purpose to show that the universe consists of atoms which are\nendowed with polarity, and that as diminished temperature allows these\natoms to come closer together and form compounds, matter in all its forms\nis built up by the action of polar forces.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nPOLARITY IN LIFE.\n\n    Contrast of living and dead\u2014Eating and\n    being eaten\u2014Trace matter upwards and life\n    downwards\u2014Colloids\u2014Cells\u2014Protoplasm\u2014Monera\u2014Composition\n    of protoplasm\u2014Essential qualities of life\u2014Nutrition and\n    sensation\u2014Motion\u2014Reproduction\u2014Spontaneous generation\u2014Organic\n    compounds\u2014Polar conditions of life.\n\n\nPolarity having been established as the universal law of the inorganic\nworld, we have now to pass to the organic, or world of life. At first\nsight there seems to be a great gulf fixed between the living and the\ndead which no bridge can span. But first impressions are very apt to\ndeceive us, and when things are traced up to their origins we often\nfind them getting nearer and nearer until it is difficult to say where\none begins and the other ends. Take for instance such an antithesis as\n\u2018eating or being eaten.\u2019 If a hunter meets a grizzly bear in the Rocky\nMountains, one would say that no distinction can be sharper than whether\nthe bear eats the man, or the man the bear. In the one case there is\na man, and in the other a bear, less in the world. But look through a\nmicroscope at a glass of water, and you may see two specks of jelly-like\nsubstance swimming in it. They are living creatures, for they eat and\ngrow, and thrust out and retract processes of their formless mass, which\nserve as temporary legs and arms for seizing food and for voluntary\nmotion. In short, they are each what may be called strictly individual\nam\u0153b\u00e6, forming separate units of the animated creation as much as the man\nand the bear. But if the two happen to come in contact, what happens?\nThe two slimy masses involve one another and coalesce, and the resulting\nam\u0153ba swims away merrily as two gentlemen rolled into one.\n\nNow in his case what became of their individualities: did am\u0153ba A eat\nam\u0153ba B, or _vice vers\u00e2_, and is the resulting am\u0153ba a survival of A or\nof B, or of both or neither of them? And what becomes of the antithesis\nof \u2018eating or being eaten\u2019 which was so clear and distinct in the highly\nspecialised forms of life, and is so evanescent in the simpler forms?\nThis illustration may serve to teach us how necessary it is to trace\nthings up to their origins, before expressing too trenchant and confident\nopinions as to their nature and relations.\n\nIn the case of the organic and inorganic worlds the proper course\nobviously is, not to draw conclusions from extreme and highly specialised\ninstances, but to follow life downwards to its simplest and most\nprimitive form, and matter upwards to the form which approaches most\nnearly to this form of life. Following matter upwards, we find a regular\nprogression from the simple to the complex. Take the diamond, which is\none of the simplest of substances, being merely the crystallised form of\na single ultimate element, carbon. It is extremely hard and extremely\nstable. Ascending to compounds of two, three, or more elements, we\nget substances which are more complex and less stable; and at last we\narrive at combinations which involve many elements and are extremely\ncomplex. Among these latter substances are some, called colloids, which\nare neither solid, like crystals, nor fluid, like liquids, but in an\nintermediate state, like jelly or the white of an egg, in which the\nmolecules have great mobility and are at a considerable distance apart,\nso that water can penetrate their mass. These colloids are for the most\npart very complicated compounds of various elements based on a nucleus\nof carbon, which, from its atom having four poles with strong mutual\nattractions, is eminently qualified for forming what may be called\nthe inner skeleton of these complex combinations. Colloids of this\ndescription form the last stage of the ascending line from inorganic\nmatter to organic life.\n\nNext let us trace life downwards towards matter. There is a constant\nsuccession from the more to the less complex and differentiated: from\nman, through mammals, reptiles, fishes, and a long chain of more simple\nforms, until at its end we come to the two last links, which are the same\nfor all animals, all plants, and all forms of animated existence. The\nlast link but one is the cell, the last of all is protoplasm.\n\nProtoplasm, or, as Huxley calls it, \u2018the physical basis of life,\u2019 is a\ncolourless jelly-like substance, absolutely homogeneous, without parts or\nstructure, in fact a mere microscopic speck of jelly.\n\nThe cell is the first step in the specialisation of protoplasm, the\nouter layer of which, in contact with the surrounding environment,\nbecoming hardened so as to form an enclosing cell-wall, while a portion\nof the enclosed protoplasm condenses into a nucleus, in which a further\ncondensation makes what is called the nucleolus or second smaller\nnucleus. This constitutes the nucleated cell, whose repeated subdivision\ninto other similar cells in geometrical progression furnishes the raw\nmaterial out of which all the varied structures of the world of life\nare built up. Plants and animals, bones, muscles, and organs of sense,\nare all composed of modified cells, hardened, flattened, or otherwise\naltered, as the case may require. If we trace life up to its origin in\nthe individual instead of in the species, we arrive at the same result.\nAll plants and animals, whether of the lowest or highest forms, fish,\nreptile, bird, mammal, man, begin their individual existence as a speck\nof protoplasm, passing into a nucleated cell, which contains in it the\nwhole principle of its subsequent evolution into the mature and completed\nform.\n\nProtoplasm is, therefore, evidently the nearest approach of life\nto matter; and if life ever originated from atomic and molecular\ncombinations, it was in this form. To suppose that any more complex form\nof life, however humble, could originate from chemical combinations,\nwould be a violation of the law of evolution, which shows a uniform\ndevelopment from the simple to the complex, and never a sudden jump\npassing at a bound over intermediate grades. To understand life,\ntherefore, we must understand protoplasm; for protoplasm, closely as it\napproximates to colloid matter, is thoroughly alive. A whole family,\nthe Monera, consist simply of a living globule of jelly, which has not\neven begun to be differentiated. Every molecule, as in a crystal, is\nof homogeneous chemical composition and an epitome of the whole mass.\nThere are no special parts, no organs told off for particular functions,\nand yet all life-functions\u2014nutrition, reproduction, sensation, and\nmovement\u2014are performed, but each by the whole body. The jelly-speck\nbecomes a mouth to swallow, and turning inside out, a stomach to digest.\nIt shoots out tongues of jelly to move and feel with, and presently\nwithdraws them.\n\nWith these attributes it is impossible to deny to protoplasm the full\nattributes of life, or to doubt that, like the atom in the material\nworld, it is the primary element of organic or living existence. Given\nthe atom, we can trace up, step by step, the whole evolution of matter;\nso given the protoplasm, we can trace up the evolution of life by\nprogressive stages to its highest development\u2014man. To understand life,\ntherefore, we must begin by trying to understand protoplasm.\n\nWhat is protoplasm? In its substance it is a nitrogenous carbon compound,\ndiffering only from other similar compounds of the albuminous family of\ncolloid by the extremely complex composition of its atoms. It consists\nof five elements, and its average composition is said by chemists to be\n52\u00b755 per cent. carbon, 21\u00b723 oxygen, 15\u00b717 nitrogen, 6\u00b77 hydrogen, 1\u00b72\nsulphur. Its peculiar qualities, therefore, including life, are not the\nresult of any new and peculiar atom added to the known chemical compounds\nof the same family, but of the manner of grouping and motions of these\nwell-known material elements. It has in a remarkable degree the faculty\nof absorbing water, so that its molecules seem to float in it in a\ncondition of semi-fluid aggregation, which seems to be necessary for the\ncomplex molecular movements which are the cause or accompaniment of life.\nThus, many seeds and animalcul\u00e6, if perfectly dry, may remain apparently\nas dead and as unchanging as crystals, for years, or even, as in the case\nof the mummy wheat, for centuries, to revive into life when moistened.\n\nBut in addition to those material qualities in which protoplasm seems\nto differ only from a whole group of similar compounds of the type of\nglycerine, by the greater complexity and mobility of its molecules, it\nhas developed the new and peculiar element which is called life. Life\nin its essence is manifested by the faculties of nutrition, sensation,\nmovement, and reproduction.\n\nAs regards nutrition there is this essential difference between living\nand non-living matter. The latter, if it feeds and grows at all, does\nso only by taking on fresh molecules of its own substance on its outer\nsurface, as in the case of a small nucleus-crystal of ice in freezing\nwater. If it feeds on foreign matter and throughout its mass, it does\nso only in the way of chemical combination, forming a new product.\nLiving matter, on the other hand, feeds internally, and works up\nforeign substances, by the process we call digestion, into molecules\nlike its own, which it assimilates, rejecting as waste any surplus or\nforeign matter which it cannot incorporate. It thus grows and decays\nas assimilation or waste preponderates, remaining always itself. The\ndistinction will be clear if we consider what happens when water rusts\niron. In a certain sense the iron may be said to eat the oxygen, reject\nthe hydrogen, and grow, or increase in weight by what it feeds on; but\nthe result is not a bigger piece of iron, but a new substance, rust,\nor oxide of iron. That living matter should feed internally is not\nso wonderful, for its semi-fluid condition may well enable foreign\nmolecules to penetrate its mass and come in contact with its own interior\nmolecules; but it is an experience different from anything known in\nthe inorganic world that it should be able to manufacture molecules\nof protoplasm like its own out of these foreign molecules, and thus\ngrow by assimilation. For instance, when am\u0153b\u00e6, bacteria, and other\nlow organisms live and multiply in chemical solutions which contain no\nprotoplasm, but only inorganic compounds containing the requisite atoms\nfor making protoplasm, or when a plant not only chemically decomposes\ncarbonic dioxide, exhaling the oxygen and depositing the carbon in its\nstem and leaves, but also from this and other elements drawn from the\nsoil or air manufactures the living protoplasm which courses through its\nchannels, the result is that life has manufactured life out of non-living\nmaterials.\n\nIf we take sensation, this, in its last analysis, is change, or molecular\nmotion, induced in a body by the action of its environment. Here there\nis a certain analogy between living and non-living matter, for the\nlatter does respond to changes in the surrounding environment, as in\nthe case of heat, electricity, and otherwise; but living matter is far\nmore sensitive, the changes are far more frequent and complex, and in\ncertain cases they are accompanied by a sensation of what is called\nconsciousness, which in the higher organisms rises into a perception\nof voluntary effort or free-will as a factor in the transformation of\nenergies. Thus it happens that in the case of dead matter the changes\nproduced by a change of conditions follow fixed laws and can be predicted\nand calculated, while those of living matter are apparently uncertain\nand capricious. We can tell how much an iron bar will expand with heat;\nbut we cannot say whether, if a particle of food is brought within reach\nof an am\u0153ba, it will or will not shoot out a finger to seize it. If the\nam\u0153ba is hungry it probably will; if it is enjoying a siesta after a full\nmeal, it probably will not.\n\nThe case of sensation includes that of motion, which is after all only\nsensation applied in the liberation of energy of position which has by\nsome chemical process become stored up, either in the living mass, or\nin some special organ of it, such as muscle. Iron, for instance, moves\nwhen it expands by heat or is attracted by a magnet; but it moves, like\nthe planets, by fixed and calculable laws: while living matter moves,\nas might be expected from the variable character of its sensation, in\na manner which often cannot be calculated. There are cases, however,\nof reflex or involuntary motion, where, even in the highest living\norganisms, sensation and motion seem to follow change of environment, in\na fixed and invariable sequence, as in shrinking from pain, touching or\ngalvanising a nerve; and it may be that the apparent spontaneousness and\nvariability of living motion is only the result of the almost infinitely\ngreater complexity and mobility of the elements of living matter.\n\nReproduction remains, which is the faculty most characteristic of life,\nand which distinguishes most sharply the organic from the inorganic\nworld. In the inorganic there is no known process by which dead matter\nreproduces itself, as the cell does when it contracts in the middle\nand splits up into two cells, which in their turn propagate an endless\nnumber of similar cells, increasing in geometrical progression until\nthey supply the raw material from which all the countless varieties of\nliving organisms are built up, which, in their turn, repeat the process\nand reproduce themselves in offspring. This is the real mystery of life;\nwe can partly see or suspect how its other faculties might arise from an\nextension of the known qualities and laws of matter and of energy; but\nwe can discern no analogy between the non-reproductive nitrogenous carbon\ncompound, which makes so near an approach to protoplasm in its chemical\ncomposition, and the reproductive protoplasm, which is fertile, increases\nand multiplies, and replenishes the earth. Can the gap be bridged over:\ncan protoplasm be manufactured out of chemical elements? It is done every\nday by plants which make protoplasm out of inorganic elements, and by\nthe lowest forms of life which live and multiply in chemical solutions.\nIt is done also in the life-history of all individuals whose primitive\ncell or ovum makes thousands or millions of other cells, each containing\nwithin its enclosing membrane as much protoplasm as there was in the unit\nfrom which they started. But in all these instances there was the living\nprinciple to start with, existing in the primitive speck of protoplasm,\nfrom which the rest were developed. Can this primitive speck be created;\nor, in other words, can protoplasm be artificially manufactured by\nchemical processes?\n\nThe answer must be, No; not by any process now known. The similarity of\nchemical composition, and the increasing conviction of the universality\nof natural law and of evolution, have led to a very general belief that\nsuch a spontaneous generation of life must be possible, and numerous\nexperiments have been made to produce it. For a time the balance\nseemed to be very evenly held between the supporters and opponents of\nspontaneous generation. In fact, starting from the assumption, which at\nfirst was common to both sides, that heat equal to the boiling point\nof water destroyed all life organisms, spontaneous generation had the\nbest of it: for it was clearly proved that living organisms did appear\nin infusions contained in vessels which had been hermetically sealed,\nafter being subjected to this, or even a higher degree of heat. But\nsubsequent and more careful experiments have shown that the germs or\nspores of bacteria and other animalcul\u00e6, which are generally floating\nin the air, can, when dry, withstand a greater degree of heat, and that\nwhen the experiments are made in optically pure air no life ever appears\nand the infusions never putrefy. On questions of this sort all who are\nnot themselves expert experimentalists must be guided by authority, and\nwe may be content to accept the dictum of Huxley that biogenesis, or all\nlife from previous life, was \u2018victorious along the whole line.\u2019 But in\ndoing so we must accept Huxley\u2019s caution, \u2018that with organic chemistry,\nmolecular physics, and physiology yet in their infancy, and every day\nmaking prodigious strides, it would be the height of presumption for any\nman to say that the conditions under which matter assumes the qualities\ncalled vital, may not some day be artificially brought together.\u2019\n\nAnd further, \u2018that as a matter not of proof but of probability, if it\nwere given me to look beyond the abyss of geologically recorded time, to\nthe still more remote period when the earth was passing through chemical\nand physical conditions which it can never see again, I should expect\nto be a witness of the evolution of living protoplasms from non-living\nmatter.\u2019 Such is the cautious candour with which scientific men approach\nproblems upon which theologians dogmatise with the unerring intrepidity\nof ignorance.\n\nIn the meantime what may be said as to Huxley\u2019s reservations is this:\nA considerable step has been made in the direction indicated, by the\nsuccess of recent chemistry in forming artificially what are called\norganic compounds, that is, substances which were previously known only\nas products of animal or vegetable secretions. Urea, for instance, the\nbase of uric acid, with which so many are unfortunately familiar in the\nform of gout; indigotine, the principle of the blue colouring matter of\nthe indigo plant; and alizarine, that of madder; are all now produced\nartificially, and have even become important articles of commerce. If\nchemists can make the indigotine, which the growing plant elaborates at\nthe same time as it elaborates protoplasm, may we not hope some day to\nmake the latter as well as the former product? Now organic compounds\nof this class are being formed artificially every day, and it is said\nthat chemists have already succeeded in producing several hundreds.\nBut even if this expectation is never fulfilled, we may fall back on\nHuxley\u2019s second reservation of the enormous difference of chemical and\nphysical conditions in the early stages of the earth\u2019s life from anything\nnow known. It has been calculated that the earth\u2019s temperature when\nit first started on its career as an independent planet was something\nlike 3,000,000\u00b0 Fahrenheit. At this heat probably all atoms would be\ndissociated; but as the temperature diminished they would come closer\ntogether, but still with a great deal of motion, and making wide\nexcursions, which might bring many different atoms together in complex\nthough unstable combinations. Moreover, carbon, which is the basis of all\nsuch combinations of the class of protoplasm, was far more abundant in\nthose early days in the form of carbonic dioxide gas, before the enormous\namount of vegetable matter in the form of coal and otherwise, had been\nsubtracted from it. In any case the first protoplasm must be extremely\nancient, for the remains of sea-weeds are found in the oldest strata,\nand vegetation of any sort implies the manufacture of protoplasm from\ninorganic matter.\n\nThe passage from the organic into the inorganic world is best traced by\nfollowing the line of Pasteur\u2019s researches on ferments. How does the\nworld escape being choked up by the accumulation of dead organic matter\nthroughout innumerable ages? By what are called ferments, inducing\nprocesses of fermentation and putrefaction, by which the course of life\nis reversed, and the organic elements are taken to pieces and restored\nto the inorganic world. Pasteur proved, in opposition to the theories\nof Liebig and other older chemists, that this was not done directly by\nthe oxygen of the air, but through the intermediate agency of living\nmicrobes, whose spores, floating in the air, took up their abode and\nmultiplied wherever they found an appropriate habitation. Given an air\npurified from germs, or a temperature low enough to prevent them from\ngerminating, and putrescible substances would keep sweet for ever. The\npractical realisation of this is seen in the enormous commerce in canned\nmeats and fruits, and in the imports of frozen beef and mutton, causing a\nfall of rents and much lamentation among British landlords and farmers.\n\nBut then the question was asked, How are your microscopic organisms\ndisposed of? What are the ferments of your ferments? For even microscopic\nbacteria and vibrios would, in time, choke up the world by their residue\nif not got rid of. Pasteur answered that the ferments are destroyed by\na new series of organisms\u2014aerobes\u2014living in the air, and these by other\naerobes in succession until the ultimate products are oxidised. \u2018Thus,\nin the destruction of what has lived, all is reduced to the simultaneous\naction of the three great natural phenomena\u2014fermentation, putrefaction,\nand slow combustion. A living being, animal or vegetable, or the _d\u00e9bris_\nof either, having just died, is exposed to the air. The life that has\nabandoned it is succeeded by life under other forms. In the superficial\nparts, accessible to the air, the germs of the infinitely little aerobes\nflourish and multiply. The carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen of the organic\nmatter are transformed by the oxygen of the air, and under the vital\nactivity of the aerobes, into carbonic acid, the vapour of water, and\nammonia. The combustion continues as long as organic matter and air are\npresent together. At the same time the superficial combustion is going\non, fermentation and putrefaction are performing their work in the midst\nof the mass by means of the developed germs of the original microbes,\nwhich, note, do not need oxygen to live, but which oxygen causes to\nperish. Gradually the phenomena of destruction are at last accomplished\nthrough the work of latent fermentation and slow combustion.\u2019\n\nThis seems a complete demonstration of the passage of the organic into\nthe inorganic world in the way of analysis, or taking the puzzle to\npieces. In the opposite way of synthesis, or putting it together, the\nnearest approach yet made has been in the manufacture of those organic\ncompounds already referred to, such as urea, alizarine, indigotine and\nother products which had hitherto only been known as products of animal\nor vegetable life. Of these a vast number have been already formed from\ninorganic elements by chemical processes, and almost every day announces\nsome fresh discovery.\n\nUnder these circumstances it is unsafe to affirm either, on the one\nhand, that the problem has been solved and that life has ever been made\nin a laboratory; or, on the other hand, that there is any such great gulf\nfixed between the organic and the inorganic, that we can assume a break\nrequiring secondary supernatural interference to surmount it, and ignore\nthe good old maxim that \u2018Natura nihil facit per saltum.\u2019 Positive proof\nis wanting, but the probabilities point here, as they do everywhere else\nthroughout the universe, to the truth of the theory of \u2018original impress\u2019\nas opposed to that of \u2018secondary interference.\u2019\n\nIt remains to show how the fundamental law of polarity affects the more\ncomplex relations of life and of its various combinations. And here\nit is important to bear in mind that as the factors of the problem\nbecome more intricate and complex, so also do the laws which regulate\ntheir existence and action. Polarity is no longer a simple question of\nattraction and repulsion at the two ends of a magnet or at the opposite\npoles of an atom. It appears rather as a general law under which as the\nsimple and absolute becomes differentiated by evolution into the complex\nand manifold, it does so under the condition of developing contrasts.\nFor every _plus_ there is a _minus_, for every like an unlike; one\ncannot exist without the other; and, although apparently antagonistic,\nharmonious order is only possible by their co-existence and mutual\nbalance.\n\nThis is so important that it may be well to make the idea clearer by an\nillustration. The earth revolves round the sun in its annual orbit under\nthe influence of two forces: the centripetal, or force of gravity tending\nto draw it towards the sun; and the centrifugal, tending to make it dart\naway into infinite space. During half the orbit the centripetal seems to\nbe gaining ground on the centrifugal, and the earth is approaching nearer\nto the sun. If this continued it would revolve ever nearer and soon fall\ninto it; but the centrifugal force is gradually recruiting its strength\nfrom the increased velocity of the earth, until it first equals the\ncentripetal, and finally outstrips it, and for the remaining half of the\norbit it is constantly gaining ground. If this went on, the earth would\nfly off into the chilly regions of outer space; but the centripetal force\nin its turn regains the ascendency; and thus by the balance of the two\nforces our planet describes the beautiful ellipse, its harmonious orbit\nas a habitable globe; while comets in which one or the other force unduly\npreponderates for long periods are alternately drawn into fiery proximity\nto the sun, and sent careering through regions void of heat.\n\nCompare this passage from Herbert Spencer: \u2018As from antagonist physical\nforces, as from antagonist emotions in each man, so from the antagonist\nsocial tendencies man\u2019s emotions create, there always results not a\nmedium state, but a rhythm between opposite states. The one force or\ntendency is not continuously counterbalanced by the other force or\ntendency; but now the one greatly preponderates, and presently by\nreaction there comes a preponderance of the other.\u2019\n\nAnd again: \u2018There is nowhere a balanced judgment and a balanced action,\nbut always a cancelling of one another by opposite errors. Men pair off\nin insane parties, as Emerson puts it.\u2019\n\nThe reader will now begin to understand the sense in which polarity\napplies to these complex conditions of an advanced evolution.\n\nTo return, however, from this digression to the point at which it began,\nviz. the origin of life, we have to show how the law of polarity prevails\nin the organic as well as in the inorganic world. In the first place the\nmaterial to which all life is attached, from the speck of protoplasm to\nthe brain of man, is strictly a chemical product of atoms and molecules\nbound together by the same polar laws as those of inorganic matter.\n\nIn like manner all the essential processes by which life lives, moves,\nand has its being, are equally mechanical and chemical. If the brain,\nreceiving a telegram from without through the optic nerve, sends a reply\nalong another nerve which liberates energy stored up in a muscle and\nproduces motion, the messages are received and transmitted like those\nsent by a voltaic battery along the wires of a telegraph, and the energy\nis stored up by the slow combustion of food in oxygen, just as that of\nthe steam-engine is produced by the combustion of coal. All this is\nmechanical, inorganic, and therefore polar.\n\nBut when we come to the conditions of life proper, we find the influence\nof polarity mainly in this: that as it develops from simpler into more\ncomplex forms, it does so under the law of developing contrasts or\nopposite polarities, which are necessary complements of each other\u2019s\nexistence. Thus, as we ascend in the scale of life, we find two primitive\npolarities developed: that of plant and animal, and that of male and\nfemale.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nPRIMITIVE POLARITIES\u2014PLANT AND ANIMAL.\n\n    Contrast in developed life\u2014Plants producers,\n    animals consumers\u2014Differences disappear in simple\n    forms\u2014Zoophytes\u2014Protista\u2014Nummulites\u2014Corals\u2014Fungi\u2014Lichens\u2014Insectivorous\n    plants\u2014Geological succession\u2014Primary period, Alg\u00e6 and\n    Ferns\u2014Secondary period, Gymnosperms\u2014Tertiary and recent,\n    Angiosperms\u2014Monocotyledons and Dicotyledons\u2014Parallel evolution\n    of animal life\u2014Primary, protista, mollusca, and fish\u2014Secondary,\n    reptiles\u2014Tertiary and recent, mammals.\n\n\nAnimals or plants? Judging by first impressions, nothing can be more\ndistinct. No one, whether scientific or unscientific, could mistake\nan oak tree for an ox. To the unscientific observer the tree differs\nin having no power of free movement, and apparently no sensation or\nconsciousness; in fact, hardly any of the attributes of life. The\nscientific observer sees still more fundamental differences, in the\nfact that the plant feeds on inorganic ingredients, out of which it\nmanufactures living matter, or protoplasm; while the animal can only\nprovide itself with protoplasm from that already manufactured by the\nplant. The ox, who lives on grass, could not live on what the grass\nthrives on, viz. carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen. The contrast is\nso striking that the vegetable world has been called the producer, and\nthe animal world the consumer, of nature.\n\nAgain, the plant derives the material framework of its structure from\nthe air, by breathing in through its leaves the carbonic dioxide present\nin the atmosphere, decomposing it, fixing the carbon in its roots, stem,\nand branches, and exhaling the oxygen. The animal exactly reverses the\nprocess, inhaling the oxygen of the air, combining it with the carbon\nof its food, and exhaling carbonic dioxide. Thus, a complete polarity\nis established, as we see in the aquarium, where plant and animal\nlife balance each other, and the opposites live and thrive, where the\nexistence of either would be impossible without the other.\n\nSharp, however, as the contrast appears to be in the more specialised and\ndeveloped specimens of the two worlds, we have here another instance of\nthe difficulty of trusting to first impressions, and have to modify our\nconceptions greatly, if we trace animal and vegetable life up to their\nsimplest forms and earliest origins. In the first place, each individual\nvegetable or animal begins its existence from a simple piece of pure\nprotoplasm. This develops in the same way into a nucleated cell, by whose\nrepeated subdivision the raw material is provided for both structures\nalike. The chief difference at this early stage is that the animal cells\nremain soft and naked, while those of vegetables secrete a comparatively\nsolid cell-wall, which makes them less mobile and plastic. This gives\ngreater rigidity to the frame and tissues of the plant, and prevents the\ndevelopment of the finer organs of sensation and other vital processes,\nwhich characterise the animal. But this is a difference of development\nonly, and the origination of the future life from the speck of protoplasm\nis the same in both worlds.\n\nIf, instead of looking at the origin of individuals, we trace back the\nvarious forms of animal and vegetable life from the more complex to the\nsimpler forms, we find the distinctions between the two disappearing,\nuntil at last we arrive at a vanishing point where it is impossible to\nsay whether the organism is an animal or a plant.\n\nA whole family, comprising sponges, corals, and jelly-fish, are called\nZoophytes, or plant-animals, from the difficulty of assigning them to one\nkingdom or the other. On the whole they rather more resemble animals,\nand are generally classed with them, though they lack many of their\nmost essential qualities, and in form often bear a close resemblance to\nplants. But when we descend a step lower in the scale of existence we\ncome to a large family\u2014the Protista\u2014of which it is impossible to say\nthat they are either plants or animals. In fact, scientific observers\nhave classed them sometimes as belonging to one and sometimes to the\nother kingdom; and it was an organism of this class, looking at which\nthrough a microscope Huxley pronounced it to be probably a plant, while\nTyndall exclaimed that he would as soon call a sheep a vegetable. They\nare mostly microscopic, and are the first step in organised development\nfrom the Monera, which are mere specks of homogeneous protoplasm. Small\nas they are they have played an important part in the formation of the\nearth\u2019s crust, for the little slimy mass of aggregated cells has in\nmany instances the power of secreting a solid skeleton, or a minute and\ndelicate envelope or shell, the petrified remains of which form entire\nmountains. Thus the nummulitic limestone, which forms high ranges on the\nAlps and Himalayas, and of which the Pyramids are built, consists of\nthe petrified skeletons of a species of Radiolaria, or many-chambered\nshells, forming the complicated and elegant mansion with many rooms\nand passages, of the formless, slimy mass which constitutes the living\norganism. Chalk also, and the chalk-like formation which is accumulating\nat the bottom of deep oceans, are the results of the long-continued fall\nof the microscopic snowdrift of shells of the Globigenera and other\nprotistic forms swimming in the sea; and in a higher stage of development\nthe skeletons of corals, one of the family of Zoophytes or plant-animals,\nform the coral reefs and islands so numerous in the Pacific and Indian\nOceans, and are the basis of the vast masses of coralline limestone\ndeposited in the coal era and other past geological periods.\n\nAs development proceeds the distinction between plants and animals\nbecomes more apparent, though even here the simplest and earliest\nforms often show signs of a common origin by interchanging some of the\nfundamental attributes of the two kingdoms. Thus, the essential condition\nof plant existence is to live on inorganic food, which they manufacture\ninto protoplasm, by working up simple combinations into others more\ncomplicated. Their diet consists of water, carbonic dioxide, and ammonia;\nthey take in carbonic dioxide and give out oxygen, while animals do\nexactly the reverse. But the fungi live, like animals, upon organic food\nconsisting of complicated combinations of carbon, which they assimilate;\nand, like animals, they inhale oxygen and give out carbonic dioxide.\n\nLichens afford a very curious instance of the association of vegetable\nand animal functions in the same plant. They are really formed of two\ndistinct organisms: a body which is a low form of Alga or sea-weed,\nand a parasitic form of fungus, which lives upon it. The former has a\nplant life, living on inorganic matter and forming the green cells, or\nchlorophyll, which are the essential property of plants, enabling them\nunder the action of the sun\u2019s rays to decompose carbonic dioxide; while\nthe parasite lives like an animal on the formed protoplasm of the parent\nstem, forming threads of colourless cells which envelop and interlace\nwith the original lichen of which they constitute the principal mass, as\nin a tree overgrown with ivy.\n\nEven in existing and highly developed plants we find some curious\ninstances of reversion towards animal life. Certain plants, for instance,\nlike the Dion\u00e6a or Venus\u2019 fly-trap, finding it difficult to obtain the\nrequisite supply of nitrogenous food in a fluid state from the arid or\nmarshy soil in which they grow, have acquired a habit of supplying the\ndeficiency by taking to an animal diet and eating flies. Conjoined with\nthis is a more highly developed sensitiveness, and power of what appears\nto be voluntary motion, and a faculty of secreting a sort of gastric\njuice in which the flies are digested. The fundamental property also\nof decomposing carbonic dioxide and exhaling oxygen depends on light\nstimulating a peculiar chemical action of the chlorophyll, and at night\nleaves breathe like lungs, exhaling not oxygen, but the carbonic dioxide.\n\nThe records of geology, imperfect as they are, show a continued\nprogression from these simple and neutral organisms to higher and more\ndifferentiated forms, both in the animal and vegetable worlds. These\nrecords are imperfect because the soft bodies of the simpler and for the\nmost part microscopic forms of protoplasm and cell life are not capable\nof being preserved in petrifactions, and it is only when they happen to\nhave secreted shells or skeletons that we have a chance of identifying\nthem. Still we have a sufficient number of remains in the different\ngeological strata to enable us to trace development. Thus, in the\nvegetable world, in the earliest strata, the Laurentian, Cambrian, and\nSilurian, forming the primordial period, which forms a thickness of some\n70,000 feet of the earth\u2019s crust\u2014or more than that of the whole of the\nsubsequent strata, Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, and Quaternary, taken\ntogether\u2014we find only vegetable remains of the lowest group of plants,\nthat of the Tangles or Alg\u00e6, which live in water. Forests of these\nsea-weeds, like those of the Aleutian Islands, in some of which single\ntangles stream to the length of sixty feet, and floating masses, like\nthose of the Sargasso Sea, appear to have constituted the sole vegetation\nof these prim\u00e6val periods.\n\nThe Primary epoch, which comes next, comprises the Devonian or Old Red\nSandstone, the Carboniferous or Coal system, and the Permian, the average\nthickness of the three together amounting to about 42,000 feet. In these\nthe family of Ferns predominates, the remains of which constitute the\nbulk of the large strata of coal, forming in modern times our great\nresource for obtaining the energy which, in a transformed shape, does so\nmuch of our work. Pines begin to appear, though sparingly, in this epoch.\n\nThe Secondary epoch comprises the Triassic, the Jurassic, and the\nCretaceous or Chalk formation, the average thickness of the three\namounting to about 15,000 feet. In this era a higher species of\nvegetation predominates, that of the Gymnosperms, or plants having naked\nseeds, of which the pines, or Conifer\u00e6, and the palm-ferns, or Cycade\u00e6,\nare the two principal classes. As in the case of the former epoch, traces\nof the approaching higher organisation in the form of leaf-bearing trees\nbegan to appear towards its close.\n\nThe Tertiary period extends from the end of the Chalk to the commencement\nof the Quaternary or modern period. It is divided into the Eocene or\nolder, the Miocene or middle, and the Pliocene or newest Tertiary system;\nthough the division is somewhat arbitrary, depending on the number of\nexisting species, mostly of shellfish, which have been found in each.\nThe average thickness of the three together is about 3,000 feet. In this\nformation a still higher class of vegetation of the same order as that\nnow existing, which made its first appearance in the Chalk period, has\nbecome predominant. It is that of Angiosperms, or plants with covered\nseeds, forming leafy forests of true trees. This group is divided\ninto the two classes of monocotyledons or single-seed-lobed plants,\nand dicotyledons or plants with double seed-lobes. The monocotyledons\nspring from a single germ leaf, and are of simpler organisation than the\nother class. They comprise the grasses, rushes, lilies, irids, orchids,\nsea-grasses, and a number of aquatic plants, and in their highest form\ndevelop into the tree-like families of the palms and bananas.\n\nThe dicotyledons include all forms of leaf-bearing forest trees, almost\nall fruits and flowers, in fact by far the greater part of the vegetable\nworld familiar to man, as coming into immediate relation with it, except\nin the case of the cultivated plants, which are developments of the\nmonocotyledon grasses.\n\nWe see, therefore, in the geological record a confirmation of the\nevolution over immense periods of time of the more complex and perfect\nfrom the simple and primitive.\n\nIf we turn to the same geological record to trace the development of\nanimal life, we find it running a parallel course with that of plants.\nThe earliest known fossil, the Eozoon Canadiense, from the Lower\nLaurentian, is that of the chambered shell of a protista of the class\nof Rhizopods, whose soft body consists of mere protoplasm which has not\nyet differentiated into cells. As we ascend the scale of the primordial\nera, traces of marine life of the lower organisms begin to appear, until\nin the Silurian they become very abundant, consisting however mainly\nof mollusca and crustacea, and in the Upper Silurian we find the first\ntraces of fishes.\n\nIn the Primary era the Devonian and Permian formations are characterised\nby a great abundance of fishes, of the antique type, which has no true\nbony skeleton, but is clothed in an armour of enamelled scales, and whose\ntail, instead of being bi-lobed or forked, has one lobe only\u2014a type of\nwhich the sturgeon and garpike are the nearest surviving representatives.\nIn the Coal formation are found the first remains of land animals in the\nform of insects and a scorpion, and a few traces of vertebrate amphibious\nanimals and reptiles; while higher up in the Permian are found a few more\nhighly developed reptiles, some of which approximate to the existing\ncrocodile. Still fishes greatly predominate, so that the whole Primary\nperiod may be called the age of fishes, as truly as, looking at its\nflora, it may be called the age of ferns.\n\nIn the Secondary period reptiles predominate, and are developed into a\ngreat variety of strange and colossal forms. The first birds appear,\nbeing obviously developed from some of the forms of flying lizards, and\nhaving many reptilian characters. Mammals also put in a first feeble\nappearance, in the form of small, marsupial, insectivorous creatures.\n\nIn the Tertiary period the class of mammals greatly predominates over\nall other vertebrate animals, and we can see the principal types slowly\ndeveloping and differentiating into those at present existing. The\nhuman type appears plainly in the middle Miocene, in the form of a\nlarge anthropoid ape, the Dryopithecus, and undoubted human remains are\nfound in the beginning of the Quaternary, if not, as many distinguished\ngeologists believe, in the Pliocene and even in the Miocene ages.\n\nSo far, therefore, there seems to be a complete parallelism between the\nevolution of animal and vegetable life from the earliest to the latest,\nand from the simplest to the most complex forms. These facts point\nstrongly to a process of evolution by which the animal and vegetable\nworlds, starting from a common origin in protoplasm, the lowest and\nsimplest form of living matter, have gradually advanced step by step,\nalong diverging lines, until we have at last arrived at the sharp\nantithesis of the ox and the oak tree. It is clear, however, that this\nevolution has gone on under what I have called the generalised law of\npolarity, by which contrasts are produced of apparently opposite and\nantagonistic qualities, which however are indispensable for each other\u2019s\nexistence. Thus animals could not exist without plants to work up the\ncrude inorganic materials into the complex and mobile molecules of\nprotoplasm, which are alone suited for assimilation by the more delicate\nand complex organisation of animal life. Plants, on the other hand,\ncould not exist without a supply of the carbonic dioxide, which is their\nprincipal food, and which animals are continually pouring into the air\nfrom the combustion of their carbonised food in oxygen, which supplies\nthem with heat and energy. Thus nature is one huge aquarium, in which\nanimal and vegetable life balance each other by their contrasted and\nsupplemental action, and, as in the inorganic world, harmonious existence\nbecomes possible by this due balance of opposing factors.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nPRIMITIVE POLARITIES\u2014POLARITY OF SEX.\n\n    Sexual generation\u2014Base of ancient cosmogonies\u2014Propagation\n    non-sexual in simpler forms\u2014Am\u0153ba and cells\u2014Germs and\n    buds\u2014Anemones\u2014Worms\u2014Spores\u2014Origin of sex\u2014Ovary and male\n    organ\u2014Hermaphrodites\u2014Parthenogenesis\u2014Bees and insects\u2014Man and\n    woman\u2014Characters of each sex\u2014Woman\u2019s position\u2014Improved by\n    civilisation\u2014Christianity the feminine pole\u2014Monogamy the law\n    of nature\u2014Tone respecting women test of character\u2014Women in\n    literature\u2014In society\u2014Attraction and repulsion of sexes\u2014Like\n    attracts unlike\u2014Ideal marriage\u2014Woman\u2019s rights and modern\n    legislation.\n\n\n\u2018Male and female created He them.\u2019 At first sight this distinction of sex\nappears as fundamental as that of plant and animal. Mankind, and all the\nhigher forms of life with which mankind has relations, can only propagate\ntheir species in one way: by the co-operation of two individuals of the\nspecies, who are essentially like and yet unlike, possessing attributes\nwhich are complementary of one another, and whose union is requisite to\noriginate a new living unit\u2014in other words, by sexual propagation. So\ncertain does this appear that all ancient religions and philosophies\nbegin by assuming a male and female principle for their gods, or first\nguesses at the unknown first causes of the phenomena of nature. Thus\nOuranos and Gaia, Heaven and Earth; Ph\u0153bus and Artemis, the Sun and\nMoon: are all figured by the primitive imagination as male and female;\nand the Spirit of God brooding over Chaos and producing the world, is\nonly a later edition, revised according to monotheistic ideas, of the\nfar older Chaldean legend which describes the creation of Cosmos out of\nChaos by the co-operation of great gods, male and female. Even in later\nand more advanced religions, traces of this ineradicable tendency to\nassume difference of sex as the indispensable condition of the creation\nof new existence are found to linger and crop up in cases where they\nare altogether inapplicable. Thus, in the orthodox Christian creed we\nare taught to repeat \u2018begotten, not made,\u2019 a phrase which is absolute\nnonsense, or _non-sense_\u2014that is, an instance of using words like\ncounterfeit notes, which have no solid value of an idea behind them. For\n\u2018begotten\u2019 is a very definite term, which implies the conjunction of\ntwo opposite sexes to produce a new individual. Unless two deities are\nassumed of different sexes the statement has no possible meaning. It is a\ncurious instance of atavism, or the way in which the qualities and ideas\nof remote ancestors sometimes crop up in their posterity.\n\nScience, however, makes sad havoc with this impression of sexual\ngeneration being the original and only mode of reproduction, and the\nmicroscope and dissecting knife of the naturalist introduce us to new\nand altogether unsuspected worlds of life. By far the larger proportion\nof living forms, in number at any rate, if not in size, have come into\nexistence without the aid of sexual propagation. When we begin at the\nbeginning, or with those Monera which are simple specks of homogeneous\nprotoplasm, we find them multiplying by self-division. Am\u0153ba A, when it\noutgrows its natural size, contracts in the middle and splits into two\nAm\u0153b\u00e6, B and C, which are exactly like one another and like the original\nA. In fact B contains one half of its parent A, and C the other half.\nThey each grow to the size of the original A, and then repeat the process\nof splitting and duplicating themselves.\n\nThe next earliest stage in the evolution of living matter, the nucleated\ncell, does exactly the same thing. The nucleus splits into two, each of\nwhich becomes a new nucleus for the protoplasmic matter of the original\ncell, and either multiply within it, or burst the old cell-wall and\nbecome two new cells resembling the first.\n\nThe next stage in advance is that of propagation by germs or buds, in\nwhich the organism does not divide into two equal parts, but a small\nportion of it swells out at its surface, and finally parts company and\nstarts on a separate existence which grows to the size of the parent by\nits inherent faculty of manufacturing fresh protoplasm from surrounding\ninorganic materials. This process may be witnessed any day in an aquarium\ncontaining specimens of the sea-anemone, where the minute new anemones\nmay be seen in every form, both before and after they have parted from\nthe parent body. It remains one of the principal modes of propagation of\nthe vegetable world, where plants are multiplied from buds even after\nthey have developed the higher mode of sexual propagation by seeds.\nIn some of the lowest animals, such as worms, the buds are reduced\nto a small aggregation of cells, which form themselves into distinct\nindividuals inside the body of the parent, and separate from it when they\nhave attained a certain stage of development.\n\nAdvancing still further on the road towards sexual reproduction, we find\nthese germ-buds reduced to spores, or single cells, which are emitted\nfrom the parent, and afterwards multiply by division until they form a\nmany-celled organism, which has the hereditary qualities of the original\none. This is the general form of propagation of the lower plants, such\nas alg\u00e6, mosses, and ferns, and also of a number of the lower forms\nof animal-like microscopic organisms, such as bacteria, whose spores,\nfloating in the air in enormous quantities, and multiplying when they\nfind a fit soil with astonishing rapidity, in a few days devastate\nthe potato crop of a whole district or bring about an epidemic of\nscarlet-fever or cholera. They have their use however in creation, and\ntheir action is beneficent as well as the reverse, for they are the\nprincipal cause of putrefaction, the process by which the dead organic\nmatter, which, if not removed, would choke up the world, is resolved into\nthe inorganic elements from which it sprang, and rendered available for\nfresh combinations.\n\nWe are now at the threshold of that system of sexual propagation which\nhas become the rule in all the higher families of animals and in many\nplants. It may be conceived as originating in the amalgamation of some\ngerm-cell or spore with the original cell which was about to develop into\na germ-bud within the body of some individual, and by the union of the\ntwo producing a new and more vigorous originating cell which modified the\ncourse of development of the germ-bud and of its resulting organism. This\norganism, having advantages in the struggle for life, established itself\npermanently with ever new developments in the same direction, which would\nbe fixed and extended in its descendants by heredity, and special organs\ndeveloped to meet the altered conditions. Thus at length the distinction\nwould be firmly established of a female organ or ovary containing the\negg or primitive cell from which the new being was to be developed, and a\nmale organ supplying the fertilising spore or cell, which was necessary\nto start the egg in the evolutionary process by which it developed into\nthe germ of an offspring combining qualities of the two parents. This is\nconfirmed by a study of embryology, which shows that in the human and\nhigher animal species the distinction of sex is not developed until a\nconsiderable progress has been made in the growth of the embryo. It is\nonly however in the higher and more specialised families that we find\nthis mode of propagation by two distinct individuals of different sexes\nfirmly established. In the great majority of plants, and in some of the\nlower families of animals\u2014for instance, snails and earth-worms\u2014the male\nand female organs are developed within the same being, and they are what\nis called hermaphrodites. Thus, in most of the flowering plants the same\nblossom contains both the stamens and anther, which are the male organ,\nand the style and germ, which are the female.\n\nAnother transition form is Parthenogenesis, or virginal reproduction,\nin which germ-cells, apparently similar in all respects to egg-cells,\ndevelop themselves into new individuals without any fructifying element.\nThis is found to be the case with many species of insects, and with this\ncurious result, that those same germ-cells are often capable of being\nfructified, and in that case produce very different individuals. Thus,\namong the common bees, male bees or drones arise from the non-fructified\neggs of the queen bee, while females are produced if the egg has been\nfructified.\n\nIn the higher families however of animal life the distinction of sex in\ndifferent individuals has become the universal rule, and it produces a\npolarity or contrast which becomes ever more conspicuous as we rise in\nthe scale of creation, until it attains its highest development in the\nhighest stage hitherto reached, that of civilised man and woman. Both\nphysical and mental characteristics depend mainly on the fact that the\novary or egg-producing organ is developed in the female, and thus the\nwhole work of reproduction is thrown on her. To perform this a large\nportion of the vital energy is required, which in the male is available\nfor larger and more prolonged growth of organs, such as the brain,\nstature, and limbs, by which a more powerful grasp is attained of the\noutward environment. In other words, the female comes sooner to maturity\nand is weaker than the male. She is also animated by a much stronger\nlove for the offspring, which is part of her own body, during the period\nof infancy; and thus, in addition to the physical attributes, such as\nlacteal glands and larger breasts, she inherits qualities of softness,\namiability, and devotion, which fit her for the office of nurse. Her\nphysical weakness, again, has made her, for untold ages, and even now\nin all the less advanced communities, and too often even in the most\nadvanced, the slave of the stronger male. She has thus inherited many of\nthe mental qualities which are essential to such a state: the desire to\npropitiate by pleasing and making herself attractive; the gentleness and\nsubmissiveness which shrink from a contest of brute force in which she\nis sure to be defeated; the clinging to a stronger nature for support,\nwhich in extreme cases leads to blind admiration of power and the\nspaniel-like attachment to a master whether deserving of it or not. As\ncivilisation however advances, and as intellectual and moral qualities\ngain ascendency over brute strength and animal instincts, the condition\nof woman improves, and it comes more and more to be recognised that she\nis not made to be man\u2019s slave or plaything, but has her own personality\nand character, which, if in some respects inferior, are in others better\nthan those of the male half of creation. Tennyson, the great poet of\nmodern thought, who sums up so many of the ideas and tendencies of the\nage in concise and vigorous verse, writes:\u2014\n\n    For woman is not undeveloped man,\n    Nor yet man\u2019s opposite.\n\nNot opposite, yet different, so that the one supplements what is wanting\nto the other, and the harmonious union of the two makes ideal perfection.\nIt is the glory of European civilisation to have done so much to develop\nthis idea of the equality of the sexes, and to have gone so far towards\nemancipating the weaker half of the human species from the tyranny of the\nstronger half.\n\nIt would be unfair to omit mention of the great part which Christianity\nhas had in this good work; not only by direct precept and recognition of\nreligious equality, but even more by the embodiment, as its ideal, of the\nfeminine virtues of gentleness, humility, resignation, self-devotion,\nand charity. Ideal Christianity is, in fact, what may be called the\nfeminine pole of conduct and morality, as opposed to the masculine one of\ncourage, hardihood, energy, and self-reliance. Many of the precepts of\nChristianity are unworkable, and have to be silently dropped in practice.\nIt would not answer either for individuals or nations \u2018when smitten\non one cheek to turn the other.\u2019 When an appeal is made to _fact_ to\ndecide whether it is a right rule to live as the sparrows do, taking no\nthought for the morrow, the verdict of _fact_ is in favour of foresight\nand frugality. Herbert Spencer has stated this polarity very strongly as\nthat of the religion of amity and the religion of enmity; but I think he\nstates the case too adversely for the latter, for the qualities which\nmake men and nations good fighters and victorious in the struggle for\nexistence, are in their way just as essential as the gentler virtues, and\nboth alike become defects when pushed to the \u2018falsehood of extremes.\u2019\nChristianity, therefore, whatever may become of its dogmas, ought always\nto be regarded with affection and respect for the humanising effect it\nhas produced, especially in improving the condition of the female half of\ncreation.\n\nThis improvement in the condition of women has brought about a\ncorresponding improvement in the male sex, for the polarity between the\ntwo has come to be the most intimate and far-reaching influence of modern\nlife. Take the literature of the novel and play, which aim at holding up\nthe mirror to human nature and contemporary manners, and you will find\nthat they nearly all turn upon love. The word \u2018immorality\u2019 has come to\nsignify the one particular breach of the laws of morality which arises\nfrom the relations of the sexes.\n\nIn providing for the birth of nearly equal numbers of each sex, nature\nclearly establishes monogamy, or union of single pairs, as the condition\nof things most in accordance with natural laws. The family also, the\nfirst germ of civilisation, is impossible, or can only exist in a very\nimperfect and half-developed state, without this permanent union of a\nsingle husband and wife. Violations of this law lead to such disastrous\nconsequences to individuals, and are so deteriorating to nations, that\nthey are properly considered as the \u2018immorality\u2019 _par excellence_, and\ncondemned by all right-minded opinion. And yet to observe this law is a\nconstant lesson in self-control for a great part of the life: a lesson of\nthe utmost value, for it is a virtue which is at the root of all other\nvirtues. And it is formed and becomes habitual and easy by practice,\nfor just as the muscles of the ballet-dancer\u2019s leg or blacksmith\u2019s arm\nacquire strength and elasticity by use, so do the finer fibres of the\nbrain improve by exercise and become soft and flabby by disuse, so that\neffort in the former case is a pleasure and in the latter a pain. For\nthis reason chaste nations are generally strong and conquering nations;\ndissolute Imperial Rome went down before the Goths and Germans, and\npolygamous Turkey perishes of dry rot in the midst of the progress of\nthe nineteenth century. Indeed, there is no better test of the position\nwhich either an individual, a class, or a nation hold in the scale of\ncivilisation, than the tone which prevails among the men with regard to\nwomen. Wherever Turkish ideas prevail, we may be sure that whatever may\nbe the outward varnish of manner there is essential snobbishness.\n\n                        Up and down\n    Along the scale of life, through all,\n    To him who wears the golden ball,\n    By birth a king, at heart a clown\n\nOn the other hand, wherever women are regarded with a chivalrous respect\nand reverence, the heart of a true gentleman beats, though it be under\nthe rough exterior of one of Bret Harte\u2019s cow-boys or Californian miners.\n\nNothing in fact gives one more hope in the progress of human society than\nto find that in the freest countries, and those farthest advanced towards\nmodern ideas and democratic institutions, the tone with regard to women\nshows the greatest improvement. There is a regular _crescendo_ scale of\nprogress from Turkey to America. I do not refer so much to the fact that\nin the newer colonies and countries women can travel unprotected without\nfear of insult or injury, as to the almost instinctive recognition of\ntheir equal rights as intelligent and moral beings who have a personality\nand character of their own, which places them on the same platform as men\nthough on opposite sides of it.\n\nTo understand rightly the real spirit of an age or country, it is not\nenough to study dry statistics or history in the form of records of\nwars and political changes. We must study the works of the best poets,\nnovelists, and dramatists, who seek to embody types and to hold up the\nmirror to contemporary ideas and manners. A careful perusal of such works\nas those of Dickens, Thackeray, Trollope, and George Eliot at home, and\nof Bret Harte, Howells, James, and Mrs. Burnett in the United States,\nwill give a truer insight into the inner life of the country and period\nthan any number of blue-books or consular returns. They show what the\nwriters of the greatest genius, that is, of the greatest insight, see as\ntypes of the actual ideas and characters surrounding them; and the fact\nof their works being popular shows that the types are recognised as true.\nNow it is certain that the English literature of fiction and its latest\ndevelopment, that of the American novelists, show an ever-increasing\nrecognition of the female individual as an equal unit with the male in\nthe constitution of modern society. Those dear \u2018school marms\u2019 of Bret\nHarte\u2019s and Wendell Holmes\u2019, who career so joyously through mining camps,\nreceiving courtesy and radiating civilising influences among the rough\ninhabitants; or touch the hearts and throw a mellow light over the autumn\ndays of middle-aged professors and philosophers, are far removed from\nthe slaves of prehistoric savages or the inmates of a Turkish harem. So\nalso in the more complex relations of a more crowded civilisation, in the\ncircles of Washington, New York, and Boston, the ideal American woman is\nalways depicted as bright, intelligent, and independent, with a character\nand personality of her own, and the suspicion never seems to enter the\nauthor\u2019s head that she is in any respect inferior to the male characters\nwith whom she is associated.\n\nThe same may be said to a great extent of English literature from the\ntime of Shakespeare downwards. No better portrait than Portia was ever\ndrawn of the\n\n    Perfect woman, nobly planned\n    To soothe, to comfort, and command;\n    And yet a spirit still, and bright\n    With something of an angel light.\n\nAnd in the long gallery of good and loveable women, from Rosalind and\nImogene down to Lucy Roberts and Laura Pendennis, we have not one who is\na mere non-entity or child of passionate impulse. Nor is the recognition\nof woman\u2019s equality less marked in the bad characters. Lady Macbeth is\nof a stronger nature than Macbeth; Becky Sharp more clever and full of\nresources than the men with whom she plays like puppets; Maggie Tulliver,\nwith all her wild struggles with herself and her surroundings, has far\nmore in her than her brother Tom. Compare these characters with those\nof the school of modern French novels, which turn mainly on adultery\nand seduction, committed for the most part not in any whirlwind of\nirresistible passion, but to gratify some passing caprice or vanity, and\nit is easy to see how wide is the gulf which separates the ideals and\nmoral atmosphere of the two countries.\n\nIt is not therefore from any wish to indulge in what Herbert Spencer\ncalls the \u2018unpatriotic bias,\u2019 and depreciate my own country, that I am\ndisposed to think that the younger English-speaking communities are\nsomewhat in advance of ourselves in this matter of the relations of\nthe sexes, but simply because I think that the feeling is there more\nwidespread and universal. We have in English society two strata in which\nwomen are still considered as inferior beings to men: a lower one, where\nbetter ideas have not yet permeated the dense mass of ignorance and\nbrutality; and a higher one, where among a certain portion, let us hope\na small one, of the gilded youth and upper ten, luxury and idleness have\nblunted the finer susceptibilities, and created what may be most aptly\ncalled a Turkish tone about women. There are many of this class, and\nunfortunately often in high places, where their example does widespread\nmischief, whose ideal might be summed up in the words of the Irish\nballad:\u2014\n\n    I am one of the ould sort of Bradies,\n      My turn does not lie to hard work;\n    But I\u2019m fond of my pipe and the ladies,\n      And I\u2019d make a most illigant Turk.\n\nAnd most \u2018illigant Turks\u2019 they make, though far worse than real\nTurks who are born and brought up in the ideas and surroundings of a\nlower civilisation; while the tone of our English Turks is far more\nnauseous and disgusting, as denoting innate selfishness, sensuality,\nand vulgarity. Of these two classes there seem to be fewer in the newer\nEnglish communities; and if they exist, they are in such a small minority\nthat they conceal their existence, and pay the homage of vice to virtue\nwhich is called hypocrisy.\n\nTo return, however, to the more scientific aspects of the question, the\npolarity of sex displays itself as conspicuously as that of the magnet in\nthe fundamental law of repulsion of like for like, and attraction of like\nfor unlike. In each case there must be an identity of essence developing\nitself in opposite directions. Thus, atoms attract or repel atoms, but\nnot molecules; for if they seem to do so, it is only in cases in which\nthe molecule contains some atom whose atomicity or polar power has not\nbeen fully satisfied. So currents of air or water do not affect electric\ncurrents. But given the identity of substance, its differentiation takes\nplace under an ever-increasing progression of polarity of affinities and\nrepulsions.\n\nA German naturalist, Brahm, discussing the question why birds sing, says,\n\u2018the male finds in the female those desirable and attractive qualities\nwhich are wanting in himself. He seeks the opposite to himself with\nthe force of a chemical element.\u2019 This is equally true of the male and\nfemale of the human species. A masculine woman and effeminate man are\nequally unattractive, and if the qualities are pushed to an extreme\nextent, the individuals become monstrosities, and, instead of attracting,\nexcite vehement disgust and repulsion. This, which is true physically,\nis equally true of moral and intellectual characteristics. Each seeks,\nin the happy marriage or perfect ideal union, the qualities which are\nmost deficient in themselves: the woman, strength, active courage, and\nthe harder qualities; the man, gentleness, amiability, and the softer\nvirtues. In each individual, as in each union of individuals, harmony\nand perfection depend on the due balance of the opposite qualities, and\nthe \u2018falsehood of extremes\u2019 leads up to chaos and insanity. The man in\nwhom strength and hardihood are not tempered by gentleness and affection\nbecomes brutal and tyrannical; while the woman who has no strength of\ncharacter becomes silly and frivolous. Marriage, however, involves the\nhighest ideal, for the well-assorted union of the two in one gives a more\ncomplete harmony and reconciliation of opposites than can be attained\nby the single individual, who must always remain more or less within\nthe sphere of the polarity of his or her respective sex. But here also\nthe same law of polarity operates, for as happy marriage affords the\nhighest ideal, so do unhappy and ill-assorted unions involve the greatest\nmisery and most complete shipwreck of life. Especially to the woman, for\nthe man has other pursuits and occupations, and can to a great extent\nwithdraw himself from domestic troubles; while the woman has no defence\nagainst the coarseness, selfishness, and vulgarity of the partner to\nwhom she is tied, and who may make her life a perpetual purgatory, and\ndrag all her finer intellectual and moral nature down to a lower level.\nFortunately extreme cases are rare, and, though the ideal of a perfect\nunion may seldom be attained to, the great majority of married couples\nmanage to jog on together, and bring up families in comparative comfort\nand respectability. Evidently, however, in many cases the weaker party\ndoes not get fair play, and the laws which are the result of centuries of\nmale legislation are often too oblivious of the maxim that what is \u2018sauce\nfor goose is sauce for gander.\u2019 Improvement, however, is coming from the\ngrowth of the more healthy public opinion which stigmatises any invasion\nof woman\u2019s real rights, and any attempt on the part of her natural\nprotector to bully and tyrannise, as utterly disgraceful; and the waves\nof this public opinion are slowly but surely sapping the cliffs of legal\nconservatism, and forcing the intrenchments of stolid injustice behind\nermine robes, horsehair wigs, and obsolete Acts of Parliament.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nPRIMITIVE POLARITIES\u2014HEREDITY AND VARIATION.\n\n    Heredity in simple forms of life\u2014In more complex\n    organisms\u2014Pangenesis\u2014Varieties how produced\u2014Fixed by law of\n    survival of the fittest\u2014Dr. Temple\u2019s view\u2014Examples: triton,\n    axolotl\u2014Variations in individuals and species\u2014Lizards into\n    birds\u2014Ringed snakes\u2014Echidna.\n\n\nAs the earth is kept in an orbit, which makes life possible by the\nbalance of the antagonist centripetal and centrifugal forces, so is\nthat life evolved and maintained by the balance of the two conflicting\nforces of heredity and variation. Heredity, or the principle which makes\noffsprings resemble their parental organisms, may be considered as the\ncentripetal force which gives stability to species; while variation is\nlike the centrifugal force which tends to make them develop into new\nforms, and prevents organic matter from remaining ever consolidated into\none uniform mass.\n\nAs regards heredity, the considerations which have been advanced in the\nlast chapter, on the origin of sex, will enable the reader to understand\nthe principles on which it is based. When a moneron, or living piece\nof pure protoplasm, or its successor the nucleated cell, propagates\nitself by simple division into two equal parts, it is obvious that each\nhalf must, in its atomic constitution and motions, exactly resemble the\noriginal. If am\u0153ba A divides into am\u0153b\u00e6 B and C, both B and C are exact\nfacsimiles of A and of one another, and so are the progeny of B and C\nthrough any number of generations. They must remain identical repetitions\nof the parent form, unless some of them should happen to be modified by\ndifferent actions of their surrounding environment, powerful enough to\naffect the original organisation.\n\nIn propagation by germs or buds, the same thing must hold true, only, as\nthe offspring carries with it not the half, but only a small portion of\nthe parental organism, its impress will be less powerful, and the new\norganism will more readily be affected by external influences. When we\ncome to propagation by spores or single cells, and still more to sexual\npropagation by the union of single cells of two progenitors, it becomes\nmore difficult to see how the type of the two parents, and of a long line\nof preceding ancestors, can be maintained so perfectly.\n\nOf the fact that it is maintained there can be no doubt. Not only do\nspecies breed true and remain substantially the same for immense periods,\nbut the characters of individual parents and their ancestors repeat\nthemselves, to a great extent, in their offspring. Thus the cross between\nthe white and black varieties of the human species perpetuates itself\nto such an extent, that a single cross of black blood leaves traces for\na number of generations. In the Spanish American States and the West\nIndies, where the distinction is closely observed, the term \u2018octoroon\u2019\nis well known, as applied to Creoles who have seven-eighths of white\nto one-eighth of black blood in their composition. In the case of what\nis called \u2018atavism,\u2019 this recurrence to the characters of ancestors\nis carried to a much further extent. In breeding animals, it is not\nuncommon to find the peculiar features of generations of ancestors\nlong since extinct cropping up occasionally in individuals. Thus,\nstripes like those of the ass along the back and down the shoulders,\noccasionally appear on horses whose immediate ancestors for many\ngenerations back showed nothing of the sort; and even stripes across\nthe legs like those of the zebra occur quite unexpectedly, and testify\nto the common descent of the various species of the horse tribe from a\nstriped ancestor. How these ancestral peculiarities can be transmitted\nthrough many generations, each individual of which originated from a\nsingle microscopic cell which had been fructified by another cell, is\none of the greatest mysteries of nature. It may assist us in forming\nsome idea of the possibility of a solution to remember what has been\nproved as to the dimensions of atoms. Their order of magnitude is that\nof a cricket-ball to the earth. In a single microscopic cell, therefore,\nthere may be myriads of such atoms circling round one another and forming\ninfinitesimal solar systems, of infinite complexity and variety. Darwin\u2019s\ntheory of \u2018Pangenesis\u2019 supposes that some of the actual identical atoms\nwhich formed part of ancestral bodies are thus transmitted through their\ndescendants for generation after generation, so that we are literally\n\u2018flesh of the flesh\u2019 of the prim\u00e6val creature who was developed into man\nin the later tertiary or early glacial period. Haeckel, more plausibly,\nsuggests that not the identical atoms, but their peculiar motions and\nmode of aggregation have been thus transmitted: a mode of transmission\nwhich, with his prevailing tendency to invent long and learned names\nfor everything, he calls the \u2018Perigenesis of plastids.\u2019 In any case,\nhowever, these must be taken not as solutions of the problem, but as\nguesses at the truth which show that its solution is not impossible.\n\nThe opposite principle to heredity, that of variation, is equally\nimportant and universal. It is apparent in the fact, that although\nevery individual of every species reproduces qualities of parents and\nancestors, no two individuals do so in precisely the same manner; no two\nare exactly alike. This difference, or individuality, becomes more marked\nas the organism is higher. Thus, sheep and hounds differ from one another\nby slight differences which require the practised eye of the shepherd\nor huntsman to detect; while human beings are so unlike, that of the\nmany millions existing in each generation no two exactly resemble one\nanother. The reason of this is apparent if we consider that the higher\nthe organism the more complex does it become, and the less the chance of\nthe whole complicated relations of parent and ancestral organisms being\ntransmitted by single cells so solidly and completely as to overpower\nand remain uninfluenced by external influences. Variation evidently\ndepends mainly on the varying influences of environment. If the exterior\nlayer of molecules of a lump of protoplasm become differentiated from\nthe interior ones and form a cell-wall, it is because they are in more\nimmediate contact with the air or other surrounding medium. Internal\nchanges depend on conditions such as temperature and nutrition. In the\ncase of cultivated plants and domestic animals we can see most clearly\nhow varieties are produced by adaptation to changes of environment. These\nvariations, however, would not proceed very far, were it not for the\ninteraction of the opposing forces of variation and heredity, by which\nlatter the variations appearing in individuals are fixed and accumulated\nin descendants, until they become wide and permanent divergencies.\nThis is done in the case of cultivated plants and domestic animals by\nman\u2019s artificial selection in pairing individuals who show the same\nvariations; and in nature by the struggle for existence, giving victory\nand survival to those forms, and in the long run to those forms only,\nwhose variations, slight as they may be in each generation, tend to bring\nindividuals into better adaptation to their environment.\n\nIt is the great glory of Darwin to have established this firmly by an\nimmense number of interesting and exhaustive instances, and thus placed\nevolution, or a scientific explanation of the development and laws of\nlife, on a solid basis. Every day fresh discoveries and experiments\nconfirm this great principle, and it has almost passed into the same\nphase as Newton\u2019s law of gravity, as a fundamental law accepted as\naxiomatic by all men of science, and as the basis of modern thought, to\nwhich all religions and philosophies have to conform, accepted by nearly\nall modern thinkers. I may here quote a passage from an eminent Anglican\ndivine, Dr. Temple, for the double purpose of showing how universal\nhas become the acceptance of this Darwinian view of evolution among\nintelligent men; and how little terrible are its consequences, even to\nthose who look at the facts of the universe through a theological medium\nand retain their belief in accepted creeds.\n\n\u2018It seems in itself something more majestic, more befitting of Him to\nwhom a thousand years are as one day, and one day as a thousand years,\nthus to impress His will once for all on this creation, and provide for\nall its countless varieties by this one original impress, than by special\nacts of creation to be perpetually modifying what He had previously\nmade.\u2019[1]\n\n    [1] Dr. Temple, _Religion and Science_.\n\nScientific men would be content to accept this statement of Dr. Temple\u2019s\nalmost in his own words, except that they might consider his definition\nof the Great First Cause as somewhat too absolute and confident. Having\nhad to deal so much with actual facts and accurate knowledge, they\nare apt to be more modest in assertion than even the most enlightened\ntheologian, whose studies have lain rather in the direction of phrases\nand ideas, which, from their very nature, are more vague and indefinite,\nand perhaps rather guesses and aspirations after truth, than proofs of\nit. In any case there is the authority of a learned and liberal-minded\nbishop for the position that the scientific way of looking at the\nuniverse is not necessarily profane or irreligious.\n\nTo return to variation: the instances of the operation of this principle,\nalone or in conjunction with that of heredity, in working out the\nevolution of species, are exceedingly numerous and interesting. Those who\nwish to understand the subject thoroughly must study the works of Darwin,\nHaeckel, Huxley, and other modern writers; but for my present purpose it\nwill be sufficient to refer to a few of the most marked instances which\nmay assist the reader in comprehending how the gradual evolution of life\nand creation of new species may have been brought about.\n\nThere is an amphibious animal, called the triton or water-salamander,\nakin to the frog, whose normal course is to begin life living in the\nwater and breathing by gills, and end it on land with gills metamorphosed\ninto lungs. If they are shut up in water and kept in a tank they\nnever lose their gills, but continue through life in the lower stage\nof development, and reproduce themselves in other tritons with gills.\nConversely the axolotl, a peculiar gilled salamander from the Lake of\nMexico, has its normal course to live, die, and propagate its species in\nwater, breathing by gills; but if an axolotl happens to stray from the\nwater and take to living on dry land, the gills are modified into lungs\nand the animal gains a place in the class in the school of development.\nThis fits in remarkably with the fact that the embryo of all vertebrate\nmammals, including man, passes through the gilled stage before arriving\nat the development of lungs, which assists us in understanding two facts\nof primary importance in the history of evolution.\n\nFirst, how terrestrial life may have arisen from aquatic life by\nadaptation to altered conditions.\n\nSecondly, how the evolution of the embryo sums up in the individual, in\nthe period of a few days or months, the various stages of evolutions\nwhich it has taken millions of years to accomplish in the species.\n\nAs a parallel to the transformation of gills into lungs, and of an\naquatic into a land animal, if we turn to the geological records of the\nSecondary period we may trace the transformation of a water into an air\npopulation, of sea-lizards into flying-lizards, and of flying-lizards\ninto birds. The \u2018Hesperornis\u2019 is an actual specimen of the transition,\nbeing a feathered lizard, or rather winged and feathered creature which\nis half lizard and half bird.\n\nA remarkable instance of the great change of functions which may be\nproduced by a change of outward conditions is afforded by the common\nringed snake, which in its natural state lays eggs which take three\nweeks to hatch; but if confined in a cage in which no sand is strewed\nit hatches the eggs within its own body, and from oviparous becomes\nviviparous. This may help us to understand how the lowest order of\nmammals, which, like the Australian echidna or duck-billed mole, lay\neggs, may have developed, first into marsupial, and finally into\nplacental mammals.\n\nThese examples may assist the reader in understanding how the infinite\ndiversities of living species may have been developed in the course of\nevolution from simple origins, just as the inorganic world was from\natoms, by the action and reaction of primitive polar forces between the\norganism and its environment, and between heredity and variation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nTHE KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE\u2014BRAIN AND THOUGHT.\n\n    Basis of knowledge\u2014Perception\u2014Constitution of brain\u2014White and\n    grey matter\u2014Average size and weight of brains\u2014European, negro,\n    and ape\u2014Mechanism of perception\u2014Sensory and motor nerves\u2014Separate\n    areas of brain\u2014Sensory and motor centres\u2014Abnormal states of\n    brain\u2014Hypnotism\u2014Somnambulism\u2014Trance\u2014Thought-reading\u2014Spiritualism\u2014Reflex\n    action\u2014Ideas how formed\u2014Number and space\u2014Creation\n    unknowable\u2014Conceptions based on perceptions\u2014Metaphysics\u2014Descartes,\n    Kant, Berkeley\u2014Anthropomorphism\u2014Laws of nature.\n\n\nBefore entering on the higher subjects of religions and philosophies,\nit is well to arrive at some precise idea of the limits of human\nknowledge, and of the boundary line which separates the knowable from the\nunknowable. The ultimate basis of all knowledge is perception. Without\nan environment to create impressions, and an organ to receive them,\nwe should know absolutely nothing. What is the environment and what\nthe organ of human knowledge? The environment is the whole surrounding\nuniverse, or, in the last analysis, the motions, or changes of motion,\nby which the objects in that universe make impressions on the recipient\norgan. The organ is the grey matter of that large nervous agglomeration,\nthe brain. But here I must at the outset make two reservations. In the\nfirst place I do not define how these impressions are made. In all\nordinary cases they are made through the channels of the senses; but it\nis possible that in certain exceptional cases vibrations in the brain,\ncausing perceptions, may be conveyed to it through the nerves in other\nways. In somnambulism, for instance, it seems to be an ascertained fact\nthat a somnambulist with closed eyes securely bandaged can walk in the\ndark and avoid obstacles as well as if guided by the sight in full\ndaylight. There is a great deal of evidence also that in artificial\nsomnambulism, otherwise called mesmerism or hypnotism, and also in what\nis called thought-reading, perceptions may be conveyed from one brain to\nanother otherwise than by the usual methods of speech or writing. But\nthese phenomena, however far they may be extended, do not affect the\nposition that impressions on the brain are the essential condition of\nthought. If the grey matter of the brain is deficient or diseased the\nmind is affected, and beyond a certain point becomes extinct.\n\nThe second and more important reservation is, that although mind and\nall its qualities are thus indissolubly connected with matter, it by\nno means follows that they are matter or mere qualities of it. In the\ncase of the atoms and energies, we know absolutely nothing of their real\nessence, and cannot form even a conception of what they are, how they\ncame there, or what will become of them. It is the same with mind, soul,\nor self: we feel an instinctive certainty of their existence, as we do of\nthat of matter; and we can trace their laws and manifestations under the\nconditions in which they are known to us, viz. those of association with\nmatter and motion in the brain. But of their real essence or existence we\nknow nothing, and it is as unscientific to affirm as to deny. Directly\nwe pass beyond the boundary of such knowledge as really can be known\nby human faculty, and stand face to face with the mystery of the Great\nUnknown, we can only bow our heads with reverence and say with the poet,\n\n    Behold, I know not anything.\n\nI hope thus to steer safely between Scylla and Charybdis\u2014between the\narid rocks of materialism and the whirling eddies of spiritualism.\nMaterialist and spiritualist seem to me very like two men disputing as to\nthe existence of life in the sun. \u2018No,\u2019 argues the former; \u2018for the known\nconditions there are totally inconsistent with any life we can conceive.\u2019\n\u2018Yes,\u2019 says the other; \u2018for the belief fits in with many things which\nI earnestly wish to believe respecting a Supreme Being and a future\nexistence.\u2019 To the first I say, ignorance is not evidence; to the second,\nwishes are not proofs. For myself, while not quarrelling with those more\nfavoured mortals who have, or fancy they have, superior knowledge, I\ncan only say that I really know nothing; and this being the case, I see\nno use in saying that I know, and think it both more truthful and more\nmodest to confess the limitation of my faculties.\n\nWith this caution I return to the field of positive knowledge. The brain,\nspinal marrow, and nerves consist of two substances: one white, which\nconstitutes the great mass consisting of tubes or fibres; the other grey,\nwhich is an aggregation of minute cells, so minute that it has been\ncomputed that there are several millions of them in a space no larger\nthan a sixpence. The bulk of this grey nerve-tissue is found in the\nhigher animals, and especially in man, in the outside rind which covers\nthe brain, and its amount is greatly increased by the convolutions of\nthat organ giving a greater extent of covering surface. In fact the\nconvolutions of the average human brain give as much grey matter in a\nhead of average size, as would be given by a head of four times the size\nif the brain were a plane surface. The extent of the convolutions is,\ntherefore, a sure sign of the extent of intellect. They are more numerous\nand deeper in the European than in the negro; in the negro than in the\nchimpanzee; in the anthropoid ape than in the monkey or lemur. This grey\nnerve-tissue is the organ by which impressions from without are turned\ninto perceptions, volitions, and evolutions of nerve force. The white\nmatter is simply the medium of transmission, or we may say the telegraph\nwires by which the impressions are conveyed to the head office and the\nanswers sent. The cell-tissue of the grey matter is thus emphatically\nthe organ of the mind. In fact, if it did not sound too materialistic,\nwe might call thought a secretion of the grey matter, only in saying\nso we must bear in mind that it is only a mode of expressing the fact\nthat the two invariably go together; and that if we say with the German\nphilosopher \u2018Ohne Phosphor kein Gedank,\u2019 it does not mean that thought\nand phosphorus are identical, but simply that the condition on which\nthought depends is that of the existence of a material organ of which\nphosphorus is an ingredient.\n\nThat this grey nerve-tissue is really the organ of thought has been\nfirmly established by numerous experiments both in man and the lower\nanimals. Injuries to it, or diseases in it, invariably affect what is\ncalled the mind; while considerable portions of the white matter may be\nremoved without affecting the thinking and perceptive powers. A certain\namount of it is indispensable for the existence of intellect; the more\nthere is of it as the brain increases in size and the convolutions become\ndeeper, the greater is the intellect; when these fall below certain\ndimensions intellect is extinguished and we have idiocy. The average\nbrain of the male white European weighs 49\u00bd ounces, of the negro a\nlittle under 47. The maximum brains which have been accurately weighed\nand measured, are those of Cuvier and Daniel Webster, the weight of\nthe former being 64\u2153 ounces, and the capacity of the latter being 122\ncubic inches; while the average capacity of the Teutonic race, including\nEnglish, Germans, and Americans, is 92 inches, of the negro 83, and of\nthe Australian and Hottentot 75. The brain of the idiot seldom weighs\nover 23 ounces, and the minimum weight consistent with a fair degree of\nintelligence is about 34 ounces.\n\nThe mechanism by which correspondence is kept up between the living\nindividual and the surrounding universe is very simple\u2014in reality, as\nsimple as that of any ordinary electric circuit. In the most complex\ncase, that of man, there are a number of nerve-endings, or small lumps\nof protoplasm, embedded in the tissues all over the body, or highly\nspecialised and grouped together in separate organs such as the eye\nand ear, from which a nerve-fibre leads direct to the brain, or to the\nspinal cord and so up to the brain. These nerve-endings receive the\ndifferent vibrations by which outward energy presents itself, which\npropagate a current or succession of vibrations of nerve-energy along the\nnerve-fibre. This nerve-fibre is a round thread of protoplasm covered\nby a white sheath of fatty matter which insulates it like the wire of\na submarine telegraph coated with gutta-percha. This nerve-wire leads\nup to a nerve-centre, consisting of two corpuscles of protoplasm: the\nfirst or sensory, a smaller one, which is connected by branches with the\nsecond, a much larger one, called the motor, from which a much larger\nnerve-fibre or wire proceeds, which terminates in a mass of protoplasm\nfirmly attached to a muscle. Thus, a sensation is propagated along the\nsensory nerve to the sensory nerve-centre, whence it is transmitted to\nthe motor-centre, which acts as an accumulator of stored-up energy,\na large flow of which is sent through the large conductor of the\nmotor-nerve to the muscle, which it causes to contract and thus produces\nmotion. It is thus that the simpler involuntary actions are produced\nby a process which is purely mechanical. In the more complex cases, in\nwhich consciousness and will are involved, the process is essentially\nthe same, though more complicated. The message is transmitted to the\nbrain, where it is received by a cluster of small sensory cells or\nnerve-centres, which are connected with another cluster of fewer and\nlarger motor-centres, often at some distance from them, by a network\nof interlacing fibres. But it is always a case of a single circuit of\nwires, batteries, and accumulators, adapted for receiving, recording,\nand transmitting one sort of vibrations caused by and producing one sort\nof energy, and one only. The brain does not act as a whole, receiving\nindiscriminately impressions of light, sound, and heat; but by separate\norgans for each, located in separate parts of it. It is like a great\ncentral office, in one room of which you have a printing instrument\nreading off and recording messages sent through an electric telegraph; in\nanother a telephone; in a third a self-registering thermometer, and so\non. And the same for the motor-centres and nerves. One set is told off to\nmove the muscles of the face, another those of the arms, others for the\nlegs and body, and so forth. This is further complicated by the fact that\nthe brain like the rest of the body has two sides, a right and left, and\nthat in some cases the motor-apparatus is doubled, each working only on\none side, while in others the same battery and wires serve for both. As a\nrule the right hemisphere of the brain works the muscles of the left side\nof the body, and _vice vers\u00e2_, so that an injury to one side of the brain\nmay paralyse the voluntary motion of the limbs on the opposite side,\nleaving in a perfect condition those on its own side.\n\nIn the case of the higher functions involving thought, the upper part of\nthe brain, which performs these functions, seems to be a sort of duplex\nmachine, so that we have two brains capable of thinking, just as we\nhave two eyes capable of seeing. It is a remarkable fact that the areas\nof the brain which are appropriated to the lowest and most instinctive\nfunctions, which appear first, lie lowest, and as the functions rise the\nposition of their nerve-centres rises with them. Thus, at the very base\nof the frontal convolutions at the lowest end of the fissure of Rolando,\nwe find the motor areas for the lower part of the face, by which the\nlowest animals and the new-born infant perform their solitary function\nof sucking and swallowing. Higher up are the centres in the right and\nleft brains for moving the upper limbs, that is, for seizing food and\nconveying it to the mouth, which is the next function in the ascending\nscale. Next above these are the centres for moving the lower limbs\nand for co-ordinating the motions of the arms and legs, marking the\nprogression of an organism which can pursue and catch as well as eat its\nfood. And still higher are the centres which regulate the motions of the\ntrunk and body in correspondence with those of the limbs; while highest\nof all, at the front and hind ends of the enveloping cortex of the brain,\ncome the organs of the intellectual faculties.\n\nIt is easy to see that this corresponds with the progression of the\nindividual, for the infant sucks and cries for food from the first day,\nsoon learns to extend its hand and grasp objects, but takes some time\nto learn to walk, and still longer to perform exercises like dancing or\nriding, in which the motions of the whole body have to be co-ordinated\nwith those of the limbs. And as the development of the individual is an\nepitome of the evolution of life from protoplasm, we may well suppose\nthat the brain was developed in this order from its first origin in\na swelling at the end of the spinal cord as we find it in the lowest\nvertebrates.\n\nIt is a singular fact that the particular motor area which gives the\nfaculty of articulate speech lies in a small patch of about one and a\nhalf square inches on the left side of the lower portion of the first\nbrain. If this is injured, the disease called aphasia is produced, in\nwhich the patient loses the power of expressing ideas by connected words.\nThe corresponding area on the right side cannot talk; but in left-handed\npersons this state of things is reversed, and the right side, which is\ngenerally aphasial, can be taught to speak in young people, though not in\nthe aged.\n\nHigher up in the cortex, or convoluted envelope of the brain, come the\nareas for hearing and seeing, the latter being the more extensive. These\nareas are filled mainly by a great number of sensory nerve-centres or\ncells, connected with one another in a very complicated network. These\nseem to be connected with the multitude of ideas which are excited in the\nbrain by perceptions derived from the higher senses, especially that of\nsight. The simple movements are produced by a few large motor-centres,\nwhich have only one idea and do only one thing, whether it be to move the\nleg or the arm. But a sensation from sight often calls up a multitude of\nideas. Suppose you see the face of one with whom some fifty years ago you\nmay have had some youthful love passages, but your lives drifted apart,\nand you now meet for the first time after these long years, how many\nideas will crowd on the mind, how many nerve-cells will be set vibrating,\nand how many nerve-currents set coursing along intricate paths! No wonder\nthat the nerve-corpuscles are numerous and minute, and the nerve-channels\nmany and complicated.\n\nWhen we come to the seats of the intellectual faculties the question\nbecomes still more obscure. They are probably situated in the hinder and\nfront parts of the surface of the brain, and depend on the grey matter\nconsisting of an immense number of minute sensory cells. It has been\ncomputed that there are millions in the area of a square inch, and they\nare all in a state of the most delicate equilibrium, vibrating with the\nslightest breath of nervous impression. They depend for their activity\nentirely on the sensory perceptive centres, for there is no consciousness\nin the absence of sensory stimulation, as in dreamless sleep. Perception,\nhowever caused, whether by outward stimulation of real objects, or by\nformer perceptions revived by memory, sends a stream of energy through\nthe sense-area, which expands, like a river divided into numerous\nchannels, fertilising the intellectual area, where it is stored up by\nmemory, giving us the idea of continual individual existence, and by some\nmysterious and unknown process becoming transformed into consciousness\nand deliberate thought. And conversely the process is reversed when what\nwe call will is excited, and the small currents of the intellectual area\nare concentrated by an effort of attention and sent along the proper\nnerve-channels to the motor-centres, whose function it is to produce\nthe desired movement. This mechanical explanation, it will be observed,\nleaves entirely untouched the question of the real essence and origin of\nthese intellectual faculties, as to which we know nothing more than we do\nof the real essence and origin of life, of matter, and of energy.\n\nA very curious light however is thrown on them by phenomena which\noccur in abnormal states of the brain, as in trance, somnambulism, and\nhypnotism. In the latter, by straining the attention on a given object or\nidea, such as a coin held in the hand or a black wafer on a white wall,\nthe normal action of the brain is, in the case of many persons\u2014perhaps\none out of every three or four\u2014thrown out of gear, and a state induced\nin which the will seems to be annihilated, and the thoughts and actions\nbrought into subjection to the will of another person. In this state\nalso a cataleptic condition of the muscles is often induced, in which\nthey acquire enormous strength and rigidity. In somnambulism outward\nconsciousness is in a great measure suspended, and the somnambulist\nlives for the time in a walking dream which he acts and mistakes for\nreality. In this state old perceptions, scarcely felt at the time, seem\nto revive, as in dreams, with such wonderful vividness and accuracy that\nthe somnambulist in acting the dream does things altogether impossible in\nthe waking state. Thus an ignorant Scotch servant-maid is said to have\nrecited half a chapter of the Hebrew version of the Old Testament: the\nexplanation being that she had been in the service of a Scotch minister,\nwho was studying Hebrew, and who used to walk about his room reciting\nthis identical passage. It would seem as if the brain were like a very\ndelicate photograph plate, which takes accurate impressions of all\nperceptions, whether we notice them or not, and stores them up ready to\nbe reproduced whenever stronger impressions are dormant and memory by\nsome strange caprice breathes on the plate.\n\nMost wonderful, however, are some of the phenomena of trance. In this\ncase it really seems as if two distinct individuals might inhabit the\nsame body. Jones falls into a trance and dreams that he is Smith. While\nthe trance lasts he acts and talks as Smith, he really is Smith, and\neven addresses his former self Jones as a stranger. When he wakes from\nthe trance he has no recollection of it, and takes up the thread of\nhis own life, just as if he had dozed for a minute instead of being\nin a trance for hours. But if he falls into a second trance, days or\nweeks afterwards, he takes up his trance life exactly where he dropped\nit, absolutely forgetting his intermediate real life. And so he may go\non alternating between two lives, with two separate personalities and\nconsciousnesses, being to all intents and purposes now Jones and now\nSmith. If he died during a trance, which would he be, Jones or Smith? The\nquestion is more easily asked than answered; but it certainly appears\nas if with one mode of motion in the same brain you might have one mind\nand personal identity associated with it, and with another mode of motion\ndifferent ones.\n\nIt would take me too far, and the facts are too doubtful, to investigate\nthe large class of cases included under the terms thought-reading,\ntelepathy, psychism, and spiritualism. It may suffice to say that there\nis a good deal of evidence for the reality of very curious phenomena,\nbut none of any real weight for their being caused by any spiritualistic\nor supernatural agency. They all seem to resolve themselves into the\nassertion that under special conditions the perceptions of one brain can\nbe reproduced in another otherwise than by the ordinary medium of the\nsenses, and that in such conditions a special sort of cataleptic energy\nor psychic force may be developed. The amount of negative evidence is\nof course enormous, for it is certain that in millions upon millions\nof cases thought cannot be read, things are not seen beyond the range\nof vision, and coincidences do not occur between deaths and dreams or\nvisions. Neither can tables be turned, nor heavy bodies lifted, without\nsome known form of energy and a fulcrum at which to apply it.\n\nThis borderland of knowledge is, therefore, best left to time, which is\nthe best test of truth. That which is real will survive, and be gradually\nbrought within the domain of science and made to fit in with other facts\nand laws of nature. That which is unreal will pass away, as ghosts\nand goblins have done, and be forgotten as the fickle fashion changes\nof superstitious fancy. In the meantime we shall do better to confine\nourselves to ascertained facts and normal conditions.\n\nIt is pretty certain that although the brain greatly preponderates as\nan organ of mind in man and the higher animals, the grey tissue in the\nspinal marrow and nervous ganglia exercises a limited amount of the\nsame functions proportionate to its smaller quantity. The reflex or\nautomatic actions, such as breathing, are carried on without reference\nto the brain, and the messages are received and transmitted through the\nlocal offices without going to the head office. This is the case with\nmany complicated motions which originated in the brain, but have become\nhabitual and automatic, as in walking, where thought and conscious\neffort only intervene when something unusual occurs which requires a\nreference to the head office; and in the still more complex case of the\npiano-player, who fingers difficult passages correctly while thinking of\nsomething else or even talking to a bystander.\n\nIndeed, in extreme cases, where experiments on the brain have been\ntried on lower animals, it is found that it can be entirely removed\nwithout destroying life, or affecting many of the actions which require\nperception and volition. Thus, when the brain has been entirely removed\nfrom a pigeon, it smoothes its feathers with its bill when they have been\nruffled, and places its head under its wing when it sleeps; and a frog\nunder the same conditions, if held by one foot endeavours to draw it\naway, and if unsuccessful, places the other foot against an obstacle in\norder to get more purchase in the effort to liberate itself.\n\nSo much for the organ of mind; the other factor, that of outward\nstimulus, is still more obvious. If thought cannot exist without grey\nnerve-tissue, neither can it without impressions to stimulate that\ntissue. A perfect brain, if cut off from all communication with the\nexternal universe, could no more think and have perceptions, than\nimpressions from without could generate them without the appropriate\nnerve-tissue. Once generated, the mind can store them up by memory,\ncontrol them by reason, and gradually evolve from them ever higher and\nhigher ideas and trains of reasoning, both in the individual and the\nspecies:\u2014in the individual passing from infancy to manhood, partly by\nheredity from ancestors, and partly by education\u2014using the word in the\nlarge sense of influences of all sorts from the surrounding environment;\nin the species, by a similar but much slower development from savagery to\ncivilisation.\n\nThus the whole fabric of arithmetic, algebra, and the higher calculi\nare built up from the primitive perception of number. The earliest\npal\u00e6olithic savage must have been conscious of a difference between\nencountering one or two cave-bears or mammoths; and some existing races\nof savages have hardly got beyond this primitive perception. Some\nAustralian tribes, it is said, have not got beyond three numerals, one,\ntwo, and a great number. But by degrees the perceptions of number have\nbecome more extensive and accurate, and the number of fingers on each\nhand has been used as a standard of comparison. Thus ten, or two-hand,\nthe number of fingers on the two hands has gradually become the basis\nof arithmetical numeration, and from this up to Sir W. Hamilton\u2019s\n\u2018Quaternions\u2019 the progression is regular and intelligible. But Newton\ncould never have invented the differential calculus and solved the\nproblem of the heavens, if thousands of centuries before some primitive\nhuman mind had not received the perception that two apples or two bears\nwere different from one.\n\nIn like manner geometry, as its name indicates, arises from primitive\nperceptions of space, applied to the practical necessity of\nland-measuring in alluvial valleys like those of the Nile and Euphrates,\nwhere annual inundations obliterated to a great extent the dividing\nlines between adjoining properties. The first perceptions of space would\ntake the form of the rectangle, or so many feet or paces, or cubits or\narm-lengths, forwards, and so many sideways, to give the proper area;\nbut as areas were irregular, it would be discovered that the triangle\nwas necessary for more accurate measurement. Hence the science of the\ntriangle, circle, and other regular forms, as we see it developed in\nEuclid and later treatises on geometry, until we see it in its latest\ndevelopment in speculations as to space of four dimensions.\n\nBut in all these cases we see the same fundamental principle as prevails\nthroughout the universe under the name of the \u2018conservation of energy\u2019;\nalways something out of something, never something out of nothing.\n\nThis, therefore, defines the limit of human knowledge, or boundary line\nbetween the knowable and the unknowable. Whatever is _transformation_\naccording to existing laws is, whether known or unknown, at any rate,\nknowable\u2014whatever is _creation_ is unknowable. We have absolutely no\nfaculties to enable us to form the remotest conception of what the\nessence of these primary atoms and energies really is, how they came\nthere, and how the laws, or invariable sequences, under which they act,\ncame to be impressed on them. We have no faculties, because we have\nnever had any perceptions upon which the mind can work. Reason and\nimagination can no more work without antecedent perceptions than a bird\ncan fly in a vacuum.\n\nThus, for instance, the imagination can invent dragons, centaurs, and any\nnumber of fabulous monsters, by piecing together fragments of perceptions\nin new combinations; but ask it to invent a monster whose head shall\nbe that of an inhabitant of Saturn and its body that of a denizen of\nJupiter, and where is it? Of necessity all attempts to define or describe\nthings of which we have never had perceptions, must be made in terms of\nthings of which we have had perceptions, or, in other words, must be\nanthropomorphic.\n\nSo far as science gives any positive knowledge as to the relations of\nmind to matter, it amounts to this: That all we call mind is indissolubly\nconnected with matter through the grey cells of the brain and other\nnervous ganglia. This is positive. If the skull could be removed without\ninjury to the living organism, a skilful physiologist could play with his\nfinger on the human brain, as on that of a dog, pigeon, or other animal,\nand by pressure on different notes, as on the keys of a piano, annihilate\nsuccessively voluntary motion, speech, hearing, sight, and finally will,\nconsciousness, reasoning power, and memory. But beyond this physical\nscience cannot go. It cannot explain how molecular motions of cells of\nnerve-centres can be transformed into, or can create, the phenomena of\nmind, any more than it can explain how the atoms and energies to which it\nhas traced up the material universe were themselves created or what they\nreally are.\n\nAll attempts to further fathom the depths of the unknown follow a\ndifferent line, that of metaphysics, or, in other words, introspection of\nmind by mind, and endeavour to explain thought by thinking. On entering\ninto this region we at once find that the solid earth is giving way\nunder our feet, and that we are attempting to fly in an extremely rare\natmosphere, if, indeed, we are not idly flapping our wings in an absolute\nvacuum. Instead of ascertained facts which all recognise, and experiments\nwhich conducted under the same conditions always give the same results,\nwe have a dissolving view of theories and intuitions, accepted by some,\ndenied by others, and changing with the changing conditions of the age,\nand with individual varieties of characters, emotions, and wishes. Thus,\nmind and soul are with some philosophers identical, with others mind\nis a product of soul; with some soul is a subtle essence, with others\nabsolutely immaterial; with some it has an individual, with others a\nuniversal, existence; by some it is limited to man, by others conceded to\nthe lower animals; by some located in the brain, by others in the heart,\nblood, pineal gland, or dura mater; with some it is pre-existent and\nimmortal, with others created specially for its own individual organism;\nand so on _ad infinitum_. The greatest philosophers come mostly to the\nconclusion that we really know nothing about it. Thus Descartes, after\nhaving built up an elaborate metaphysical theory as to a spiritual,\nindivisible substance independent of the brain and cognisable by\nself-consciousness alone, ends by honestly confessing \u2018that by natural\nreason we can make many conjectures about the soul, and have flattering\nhopes, but no assurance.\u2019 Kant also, greatest of metaphysicians in\ndemolishing the fallacies of former theories, when he comes to define his\n\u2018noumenon,\u2019 has to use the vaguest of phrases, such as \u2018an indescribable\nsomething, safely located out of space and time, as such not subject\nto the mutabilities of those phenomenal spheres, ... and of whose\nontological existence we are made aware by its phenomenal projections,\nor effects in consciousness.\u2019 The sentence takes our breath away, and\nmakes us sympathise with Bishop Berkeley when he says, \u2018We metaphysicians\nhave first raised a dust, and then complain we cannot see.\u2019 It prepares\nus also for Kant\u2019s final admission that nothing can really be proved by\nmetaphysics concerning the attributes, or even the existence, of the\nsoul; though, on the other hand, as it cannot be disproved, its reality\nmay for moral purposes be assumed.\n\nIt appears, therefore, that the efforts of the sublimest\ntranscendentalists do not carry us one step farther than the conclusions\nof the commonest common-sense, viz. that there are certain fundamental\nconditions of thought, such as space, time, consciousness, personal\nidentity, and freedom of will, which we cannot explain, but cannot get\nrid of. The sublimest speculations of a Plato and a Kant bring us back\nto the homely conclusions of the old woman in the nursery ballad, in\nwhose mind grave questions as to her personal identity were raised by the\nfelonious abstraction of the lower portion of her petticoat.\n\n    If I be I, as I think I be,\n    I\u2019ve a little dog at home, and he\u2019ll know me.\n\nIt is a safe \u2018working hypothesis\u2019 that when I go home in the afternoon,\nmy wife, children, and little dog will recognise me as being \u2018I myself\nI;\u2019 but why or how I am I, whether I was I before I was born, or shall\nbe so after I am dead, I really know no more than the little dog who wags\nhis tail and yelps for joy when he recognises my personal identity as\nsomething distinct from his own, when he sees me coming up the walk.\n\nOur conceptions, therefore, are necessarily based on our perceptions,\nand are what is called anthropomorphic. The term has almost come to\nbe one of reproach, because it has so often been applied to religious\nconceptions of a Deity with human, though often not very humane,\nattributes; but, if considered rightly, it is an inevitable necessity\nof any attempt to define such a being or beings. We can only conceive\nof such as of a magnified man, indefinitely magnified no doubt, but\nstill with a will, intelligence, and faculties corresponding to our own.\nThe whole supernatural or miraculous theory of the universe rests on\nthe supposition that its phenomena are, in a great many cases, brought\nabout, not by uniform law, but by the intervention of some Power, which,\nby the exercise of will guided by intelligent design, alters the course\nof events and brings about special effects. As long as the theory is\nconfined to knowable transformations of existing things, like those\nwhich are seen to be affected by human will, it is not necessarily\ninconceivable or irrational. Inferring like effects from like causes,\nthe hypothesis was by no means unreasonable that thunder and lightning,\nfor instance, were caused by some angry invisible power in the clouds.\nOn the contrary, the first savage who drew the deduction was a natural\nphilosopher who reasoned quite justly from his assumed premises. Whether\nthe premises were true or not was a question which could only be\ndetermined centuries later by the advance of accurate knowledge.\n\nWhen do we say we know a thing? Not when we know its essence and primary\norigin, for of these the wisest philosopher is as ignorant as the rudest\nsavage; but when we know its place in the universe, its relation to other\nthings, and can fit it in to that harmonious sequence of events which is\nsummed up in what are called Laws of Nature. The highest knowledge is\nwhen we can trace it up to its earliest origin from existing matter and\nenergy, and follow it downwards so as to be able to predict its results.\nThe force of gravity affords a good illustration of this knowledge, both\nwhere it comes up to, and where it falls short of, perfection.\n\nNewton\u2019s law leaves nothing to be desired as regards its universal\napplication and power of prediction; but we do not yet fully understand\nits mode of action or its relation to other forms of energy. It is\nprobable that some day we may be able to understand how the force of\ngravity appears to act instantaneously at a distance, and how all the\ntransformable forces, gravity, light, heat, electricity, and molecular or\natomic forces, are but different manifestations of one common energy. But\nin the meantime we know this for certain, that the law of gravity is not\na local or special phenomenon, but prevails universally from the fixed\nstars to the atoms, from the infinitely great to the infinitely small.\nThis is a _fact_ to which all other phenomena, which are true facts and\nnot illusions, must conform.\n\nIn like manner, if we find in caves or river-gravels, under circumstances\nimplying enormous antiquity, and associated with remains of extinct\nanimals, rude implements so exactly resembling those in use among\nexisting savages, that if the collection in the Colonial Exhibition\nof stone celts and arrow-heads used by the Bushmen of South Africa\nwere placed side by side with one from the British Museum of similar\nobjects from Kent\u2019s Cavern or the caves of the Dordogne, no one but an\nexpert could distinguish between them, the conclusion is inevitable\nthat Devonshire and Southern France were inhabited at some remote\nperiod by a race of men not more advanced than the Bushmen. Any theory\nof man\u2019s origin and evolution which is to hold water must take account\nof this fact and square with it. And so of a vast variety of facts\nwhich have been reduced to law and become certainly known during the\nlast half-century. A great deal of ground remains unexplored or only\npartially explored; but sufficient has been discovered to enable us\nto say that what we know we know thoroughly, and that certain leading\nfacts and principles undoubtedly prevail throughout the knowable\nuniverse, including not only that which is known, but that which is as\nyet partially or wholly unknown. For instance, the law of gravity, the\nconservation of energy, the indestructibility of matter, and the law of\nevolution, or development from the simple to the complex.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nRELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES\n\n    Religions, \u2018working hypotheses\u2019\u2014Newman\u2019s illative sense\u2014Origins\n    of religions\u2014Ghosts and spirits\u2014Fetishes\u2014Nature-worship\u2014Solar\n    myths\u2014Planets\u2014Evolution of nature-worship\u2014Polytheism,\n    pantheism, and theism\u2014Evolution of monotheism in the Old\n    Testament\u2014Evolution of morality\u2014Natural law and miracle\u2014Evidence\n    for miracles\u2014Insufficiency of evidence\u2014Absence of intelligent\n    design\u2014Agnosticism\u2014Origin of evil\u2014Can only be explained\n    by polarity\u2014Optimism and pessimism\u2014Jesus, the Christian\n    Ormuzd\u2014Christianity without miracles.\n\n\nHaving thus, I may hope, given the reader some precise ideas of what\nare the boundaries and conditions of human knowledge, we may proceed\nto consider their application to the highest subjects, religions and\nphilosophies.\n\nIn the introductory chapter of this work I have said that all religions\nare in effect \u2018working hypotheses,\u2019 by which men seek to reconcile the\nhighest aspirations of their nature with the facts of the universe, and\nbring the whole into some harmonious concordance. I said so for the\nfollowing reasons. In a discussion at the Metaphysical Society on the\nuniformity of laws of nature, recorded in the \u2018Nineteenth Century,\u2019\nHuxley is represented as saying that he considered this uniformity, not\nas an axiomatic truth like the first postulates of geometry, but as a\n\u2018working hypothesis\u2019; adding, however, that it was an hypothesis which\nhad never been known to fail. To this some distinguished advocates of\nCatholic theology replied, that their conviction was of a higher nature,\nfor their belief in God was a final truth which was the basis of their\nwhole intellectual and moral nature, and which it was irrational to\nquestion. This is in effect Cardinal Newman\u2019s celebrated argument of an\n\u2018illative sense,\u2019 based on a complete assent of all the faculties, and\nwhich was therefore a higher authority than any conclusions of science.\nThe answer is obvious, that complete assent, so far from being a test\nof truth, is, on the contrary, almost always a proof that truth has not\nbeen attained, owing either to erroneous assumptions as to the premises,\nor to the omission of important factors in the solution of the problem.\nTo give an instance, I suppose there could not be a stronger case of\ncomplete assent than that of the Inquisitors who condemned the theories\nof Galileo. They had in support of the proposition that the sun revolved\nround the earth the testimony of the senses, the universal belief of\nmankind in all ages, the direct statement of inspired Scripture, the\nauthority of the infallible Church. Was all this to be set aside because\nsome \u2018sophist vainly mad with dubious lore\u2019 told them, on grounds of\nsome new-fangled so-called science, that the earth revolved round its\naxis and round the sun? \u2018No; let us stamp out a heresy so contrary to\nour \u201cillative sense,\u201d and so fatal to all the most certain and cherished\nbeliefs of the Christian world, to the inspiration of the Word of God,\nand to the authority of His Church.\u2019 \u2018E pur si muove,\u2019 and yet the earth\nreally did move; and the verdict of _fact_ was that Galileo and science\nwere right, and the Church and the illative sense wrong.\n\nIn truth the distinction between the conclusions of science and those\nof religious creeds might be more properly expressed by saying that\nthe former are \u2018working hypotheses\u2019 which never fail, while the latter\nare \u2018working hypotheses\u2019 which frequently fail. Thus, the fundamental\nhypothesis of Cardinal Newman and his school of a one infinite and\neternal personal Deity, who regulates the course of events by frequent\nmiraculous interpositions, so far from being a necessary and axiomatic\ntruth, has never appeared so to the immense majority of the human race:\nand even at the present day, in civilised and so-called Christian\ncountries, its principal advocates complain that ninety-nine out of every\nhundred practically ignore it. It is not so with the uniformity of the\nlaws of nature. No pal\u00e6olithic savage ever hesitated about putting one\nfoot after another in chase of a mammoth from a fear that his working\nhypothesis of uniform law might fail, the support of the solid earth give\nway, and with his next step he might find himself toppling over into the\nabyss of an infinite vacuum. In like manner Greeks and Romans, Indians\nand Chinese, monotheists, polytheists, pantheists, Jews and Buddhists,\nChristians and Mahometans, all use standard weights in their daily\ntransactions without any misgivings that the law of gravity may turn out\nnot to be uniform. But religions theories vary from time to time and from\nplace to place, and we can in a great many cases trace their origins and\ndevelopments like those of other political and social organisms.\n\nTo trace their origins we must, as in the case of social institutions,\nlook first at the ideas prevailing among those savage and barbarous races\nwho are the best representatives of our early progenitors; and secondly\nat historical records. In the first case we find the earliest rudiments\nof religious ideas in the universal belief in ghosts and spirits. Every\nman is conceived of as being a double of himself, and as having a sort of\nshadowy self, which comes and goes in sleep or trance, and finally takes\nleave of the body, at death, to continue its existence as a ghost. The\nair is thus peopled with an immense number of ghosts who continue very\nmuch their ordinary existence, haunt their accustomed abodes, and retain\ntheir living powers and attributes, which are exerted generally with a\nmalevolent desire to injure and annoy. Hence among savage races, and by\nsurvival even among primitive nations of the present day, we find the\nmost curious devices to cheat or frighten away the ghost, so that he may\nnot return to the house in which he died. Thus, the corpse is carried\nout, not by the door, but by a hole made for the purpose in the wall,\nwhich is afterwards built up, a custom which prevails with a number of\nwidely separated races\u2014Greenlanders, Hottentots, Algonquins, and Fijians;\nand the practice even survives among more civilised nations, such as the\nChinese, Siamese, and Thibetans; nor is it wholly extinct in some of the\nprimitive parts of Europe.\n\nThis idea obviously led to the practice of constructing tents or houses\nfor the ghosts to live in, and of depositing with them articles of\nfood and weapons to be used in their ghostly existence. In the case\nof great chiefs, not only their arms and ornaments are deposited, but\ntheir horses, slaves, and wives were sacrificed and buried with them,\nso that they might enter spirit-land with an appropriate retinue. The\nearly Egyptian tombs were as nearly as possible facsimiles of the house\nin which the deceased had lived, with pictures of his geese, oxen, and\nother possessions painted on the walls, evidently under the idea that the\nghosts of these objects would minister to the wants and please the fancy\nof the human ghost whose eternal dwelling was in the tomb where his mummy\nwas deposited.\n\nAnother development of the belief in spirits is that of fetish-worship,\nin which superstitious reverence is paid to some stock or stone, tree\nor animal, in which a mysterious influence is supposed to reside,\nprobably owing to its being the chosen abode of some powerful spirit.\nThis is common among the negro races, and it takes a curious development\namong many races of American Indians, where the tribe is distinguished\nby the totem, or badge of some particular animal, such as the bear,\nthe tortoise, or the hare, which is in some way supposed to be the\npatron spirit of the clan, and often the progenitor from whom they are\ndescended. This idea is so rooted that intermarriage between men and\nwomen who have the same totem is prohibited as a sort of incest, and\nthe daughter of a bear-mother must seek for a husband among the sons of\nthe deer or fox. Possibly a vestige of the survival of this idea may be\ntraced in the coat-of-arms of the Sutherland family, and the wild cat may\nhave been the totem of the Clan Chattan, while the oak tree was that of\nthe Clan Quoich, with whom they fought on the Inch of Perth. Be this as\nit may, it is clearly a most ancient and widespread idea, and prevails\nfrom Greenland to Australia; while it evidently formed the oldest element\nof the prehistoric religion of Egypt, where each separate province had\nits peculiar sacred animal, worshipped by the populace in one nome, and\ndetested in the neighbouring one.\n\nBy far the earliest traces of anything resembling religious ideas are\nthose found in burying-places of the neolithic period. It is evident that\nat this remote period ideas prevailed respecting ghost or spirit life and\na future existence very similar to those of modern savages. They placed\nweapons and implements in the graves of the dead, and not infrequently\nsacrificed human victims, and held cannibal feasts. Whether this was\ndone in the far more remote pal\u00e6olithic era is uncertain, for very few\nundoubted burials of this period have been discovered, and those few\nhave frequently been used again for later interments. We can only draw\na negative inference from the absence of idols which are so abundant\nin the prehistoric abodes explored by Professor Schliemann, among the\nvery numerous carvings and drawings found in the caves of the reindeer\nperiod in France and Germany, that the religion of the pal\u00e6olithic men,\nif they had any, had not reached the stage when spirits or deities were\nrepresented by images.\n\nFor the first traces therefore of anything like what is now understood\nby the term religion, we must look beyond the vague superstitions of\nsavages, at the historical records of civilised nations. As civilisation\nadvanced population multiplied, and rude tribes of hunters were\namalgamated into agricultural communities and powerful empires, in which\na leisured and cultured class arose, to whom the old superstitions were\nno longer sufficient. They had to enlarge their \u2018working hypothesis\u2019\nfrom the worship of stocks and stones and fear of ghosts, to take in a\nmultitude of new facts and ideas, and specially those relating to natural\nphenomena which had roused their curiosity, or become important to them\nas matters of practical utility. The establishment of an hereditary\ncaste of priests accelerated this evolution of religious ideas, and from\ntime to time recorded its progress. The oldest of such records are those\nof Egypt and Chald\u00e6a, where the fertility of alluvial valleys watered by\ngreat rivers had led to the earliest development of a high civilisation.\nThe records also of the Chinese, Hindoos, Persians, and other nations\ntake us a long way back towards the origins of religions.\n\nIn all cases we find them identical with the first origins of science,\nand taking the form of attempted explanations of natural phenomena, by\nthe theory of deified objects and powers of nature. In the Vedas we see\nthis in the simplest form, where the gods are simply personifications of\nthe heavens, earth, sun, moon, dawn, and so forth; and where we should\nsay the red glow of morning announces the rising of the sun, they express\nit that Aurora blushes at the approach of her lover the mighty Sun-god.\nIt is very interesting to observe how the old Chald\u00e6an legend of the\ncreation of the world has been modified in the far later Jewish edition\nof it in Genesis, to adapt it to monotheistic ideas. The Chald\u00e6an legend\nbegins, like that of Genesis, with an \u2018earth without form and void,\u2019 and\ndarkness on the chaotic deep. In each legend the Spirit of God, called\nAbsu in the Chald\u00e6an, moves on the face of the waters, and they are\ngathered together and separated from the land. But here a difference\nbegins: in the original Chald\u00e6an legend \u2018the great gods were then made;\nthe gods Lakman and Lakmana caused themselves to come forth; the gods\nAssur and Kesar were made; the gods Anu, Bel, and Hea were born.\u2019\n\nThe appearance of the gods Lakman and Lakmana was the primitive mode of\nexpressing the same idea as that which is expressed in Genesis by saying\nthat God created the firmament separating the heaven above from the earth\nbeneath; Assur and Kesar mean the same thing as the hosts of heaven and\nthe earth; the god Bel is the sun, and so forth. It is evident that the\nfirst attempts to explain the phenomena of nature originated in the idea\nthat motion and power implied life, personality, and conscious will; and\ntherefore that the earth, sky, sun, moon, and other grand and striking\nphenomena, must be regarded as separate gods.\n\nAs culture advanced astronomy became more and more prominent in these\nearly religions, and solar myths became a principal part of their\nmythologies, while astrology, or the influence of planets and stars on\nhuman affairs, became an important part of practical life. The Chald\u00e6an\nlegend referred to contains a mass of astronomical knowledge, which in\nthe Genesis edition is reduced to \u2018He made the stars also.\u2019 It describes\nhow the constellations were assigned their forms and names, the twelve\nsigns of the zodiac established, the year divided into twelve months,\nthe equinoxes determined, and the seasons set their bounds. Also how the\nmoon was made to regulate the months by its disc, \u2018horns shining forth to\nlighten the heavens, which on the seventh day approaches a circle.\u2019\n\nIn the still older Egyptian pyramids we find proof of the long previous\nexistence of great astronomical knowledge and refined methods of\nobservation, for these buildings, which are at once the largest and the\noldest in the world, are laid down so exactly in a meridian line, and\nwith such a close approximation to the true latitude, as would have\notherwise been impossible. In fact there is every reason to believe that\nwhile they were constructed as tombs for kings, they were at the same\ntime intended for national observatories, for the arrangement of the\ninternal passages as such is to make the Great Pyramid serve the purpose\nof a telescope, equatorially mounted, and showing the transits of stars\nand planets over the meridian, by reference to a reflected image of what\nwas then the polar star, a knowledge of which was essential for accurate\ncalculation of the calendar and seasons, for fixing the proper date of\nreligious ceremonies, and very probably for astrological purposes.\n\nThe prevalence of these solar and astronomical myths among a number\nof different nations separated by wide intervals of space and time is\nvery remarkable. Egyptians, Indians, Babylonians, Chinese, Mexicans,\nand Peruvians had myths which were strangely similar, indeed almost\nidentical, based on the sun\u2019s annual passage through the constellations\nof the zodiac. His apparent decline and death as he approached the\nwinter solstice, and his return to life when he had passed it, gave\nrise to myths of the murder of the Sun-god by some fierce wild boar,\nor treacherous enemy, and of his triumphant resurrection in renewed\nglory. Hence, also, the passage of the winter solstice was a season of\ngeneral rejoicing and festivity, traces of which survive when the sirloin\nand turkey smoke upon the hospitable tables of modern Christmas. One\nremarkable myth had a very universal acceptance, that of the birth of\nthe infant Sun-god from a virgin mother. It appears to have originated\nfrom the period, some 6,450 years ago, when the sun, which now rises at\nthe winter solstice in the constellation of Sagittarius, rose in that\nof Pisces, with the constellation of the Virgin, with upraised arms\nmarked by five stars, setting in the north-west. Anyhow, this myth of\nan infant god born of a virgin mother holds a prominent place in the\nreligions of Egypt, India, China, Chald\u00e6a, Greece, Rome, Siam, Mexico,\nPeru, and other nations. The resemblances are often so close that the\nfirst Jesuit missionaries to China found that their account of the\nmiraculous conception of Christ had been anticipated by that of Fuh-ke,\nborn 3468 B.C.; and if an ancient priest of Thebes or Heliopolis could\nbe restored to life and taken to the Gallery of Dresden, he would see\nin Raffaelle\u2019s Madonna di San Sisto what he would consider to be an\nadmirable representation of Horus in the arms of Isis.\n\nThe planets also, still more mysterious in their movements than the sun,\nand therefore still more endowed with human-like faculties of life,\npower, and purpose, were from an early period believed to exercise an\ninfluence on human affairs. Of the universality of this belief we find\ntraces in the names of the days of the week, which are so generally taken\nfrom the sun, moon, and five visible planets\u2014Mercury, Mars, Jupiter,\nVenus, and Saturn\u2014to whom special days were dedicated. If every seventh\nday is a day of rest, it was originally so because it was thought unlucky\nto undertake any work on the Sabbath, Saturday, or day of the gloomy and\nmalignant Saturn.\n\nAs time rolled on and civilisation advanced, this simple nature-worship\nand deification of astronomical phenomena developed into larger and more\ncomplex conceptions. Following different lines of evolution, polytheism,\npantheism and monotheism began to emerge as religious systems with\ndefinite creeds, rituals, and sacred books. These lines seem to have been\ndetermined a good deal by the genius of the race in which the religious\ndevelopment took place. The impressions made on the human mind by the\nsurrounding universe are very various. Suppose ourselves looking up at\nthe heavens on a clear starry night, what will be the impression? To\none, that of awe and reverence, and he will feel crushed, as it were,\ninto nothingness, in the presence of such a sublime manifestation of\nmajesty and glory. Another, of more \u00e6sthetic nature, will be charmed by\nthe beauty of the spectacle, and tempted to assign life to it, and to\npersonify and dramatise its incidents. A third, of a scientific turn,\nwill above all things wish to understand it.\n\nThus we find the impression of awe preponderating among the Semitic races\ngenerally; and as in their political relations, so in their religious\nconceptions, we find them prone to prostrate themselves before despotic\npower. With the Greeks again the \u00e6sthetic idea almost swallowed up\nthe others, and the old astronomical myths blossomed into a perfect\nflower-bed of poetical and fanciful legends. The Chinese never got beyond\na simple pantheism, which looked upon the universe as being alive, and\nsaw nothing behind it; while the more metaphysical and physically feebler\nraces of Hindoos and Buddhists refined their pantheism into a system of\nillusion, in which their own existence and the surrounding universe were\nliterally\n\n                        such stuff\n    As dreams are made on,\n\nand to be \u2018rounded with a sleep\u2019 was the final consummation devoutly to\nbe desired.\n\nMonotheism developed itself later, partly from the feeling of the\nunity of nature forcing itself on the more philosophical minds; partly\nfrom that feeling of reverence and awe in presence of the Unknown which\nswallowed up other conceptions; and partly, in the earlier stages, from\nthe feeling which exalted the local god of the tribe or nation, first\ninto a supremacy over other gods, and finally into sole supremacy,\ndegrading all other gods into the category of dumb idols made by human\nhands. In the Old Testament we can trace the development of this latter\nidea in its successive stages. Until the later days of the Jewish\nmonarchy it is evident that the Jews never doubted the existence of other\ngods; and their allegiance oscillated between Jehovah and the heathen\ndeities symbolised by the golden calf, worshipped in high places, and\ncontending for the mastership in the rival sacrifices of Elijah and the\npriests of Baal. But the prophetic element gradually introduced higher\nideas, and in the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah the worship of Jehovah\nas the sole God became the religion of the State; and old legends and\ndocuments were re-edited in this sense in the sacred book, which was\ndiscovered and published for the first time in the reign of the latter\nking. The subsequent misfortunes of the nation, their captivity and\ncontact with other religions in Babylonia, strengthened this monotheism\ninto an ardent, passionate national faith, as it has continued to be\nwith this remarkable people up to the present day. Christianity and\nMahometanism, children of Judaism, have spread this form of faith over\na great part of the civilised world; and of the three theories of\npolytheism, pantheism, and monotheism, it may be said that only the two\nlatter survive.\n\nPolytheism was bound to perish first, for slow as the advance of science\nwas, the uniformity of most of the phenomena, which had been attributed\nto so many separate gods, could not fail to make an impression; and as\nideas of morality came slowly and tardily to be evolved as an element\nof religion, the cruel rites and scandalous fables which so generally\naccompanied polytheistic religions became shocking to an awakening\nconscience.\n\nIt is worthy of remark that this element of morality, which has now\ngone so far towards swallowing up the others, was the latest to appear.\nEven in the Jewish conception Jehovah was for a long time just as often\ncruel, jealous, and capricious, as just and merciful; and St. Paul\u2019s\ndoctrine that because God had the power to do as He liked, He was\nwarranted in creating a large portion of the human race as \u2018vessels of\nwrath,\u2019 predestined to eternal punishment, is as revolting to the modern\nconscience as any sacrifice to Beelzebub or Moloch. If we wish to see how\nlittle necessary connection there is between morality and monotheism, we\nhave only to look at Mahometanism, which, in its extremer forms, may be\ncalled monotheism run mad.\n\nThe Wahabite reformer, we are told by Palgrave, preached that there were\nonly two deadly sins: paying divine honours to any creature of Allah\u2019s,\nand smoking tobacco; and that murder, adultery, and such like trivial\nmatters, were minor offences which a merciful Allah would condone. He\nheld also that of the whole inhabitants of the world all would surely\nbe damned, except one out of the seventy-two sects of Mahometans, who\nheld the true faith and dwelt in the district of Riad. This illustrates\nthe insane extremes into which all human speculations run, if a single\nidea\u2014in this case that of awe, reverence, and abject submission in\npresence of an almighty power\u2014is allowed to run its course without check\nand obtain undue preponderance.\n\nApart from these extreme instances we may say that the two religious\ntheories which have survived to the present day in the struggle for\nexistence, are monotheism and pantheism. Pantheism is, in the main, the\ncreed of half the human race\u2014of the teeming millions of India, China,\nJapan, Ceylon, Thibet, Siam, and Burmah. How deeply it is rooted in\ntheir conceptions was very forcibly impressed on me in a conversation I\nhad on board one of the P. and O. steamers with an English missionary\nreturning from China. He told me how he had dined one evening with an\nintelligent Chinese merchant, and after dinner they walked in the garden\ndiscussing religious subjects, and he tried to impress on his host the\nfirst principles of the Christian religion. It was a starlight night,\nand for sole reply the Chinese gentleman stretched his hand to the\nheavens and said, \u2018Do you mean to tell me all that is dead\u2014do you take\nme for a fool?\u2019 The Chinese \u2018illative sense\u2019 was as absolute in its\nconclusions for pantheism, as that of Cardinal Newman for theism. In fact\npantheism, though not the whole truth, and almost as inconsistent as\npolytheism with the real facts of the universe as disclosed by science,\nhas a certain poetical truth in it, to which chords of human emotion\nvibrate responsively, and is perhaps not so widely in error as some of\nthe extreme theories which treat matter as something base and brutal.\nWordsworth\u2019s noble lines\u2014\n\n                          A sense sublime\n    Of something far more deeply interfused,\n    Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,\n    And the round ocean and the living air,\n    And the blue sky, and in the mind of man;\n    A motion, and a spirit that impels\n    All thinking things, all objects of all thoughts,\n    And rolls through all things\u2014\n\nare pure pantheism, and yet we cannot but feel ourselves to a great\nextent in sympathy with them.\n\nSo also the well-known lines of a greater than Wordsworth, Shakespeare,\nare pure Buddhism:\n\n    The cloud-capp\u2019d towers, the gorgeous palaces,\n    The solemn temples, the great globe itself,\n    Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve\n    And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,\n    Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff\n    As dreams are made on, and our little life\n    Is rounded with a sleep.\n\nNo one can read these lines without feeling that the Buddhist conception\nis as far as possible from being a trivial or vulgar one, and that the\ntriviality and vulgarity are rather with those who cannot, up to a\ncertain point, understand and sympathise with it.\n\nThe religions of the East are very philosophical, and have kept very\nclearly in view this fundamental distinction between the knowable and\nthe unknowable. In the \u2018Century Magazine\u2019 of July 1886, there is an\ninteresting account of a conversation between an American missionary\nand the Bozu or chief priest of the great temple of the Shin Sect of\nBuddhists at Kioto in Japan. The priest was an intelligent and highly\neducated gentleman who spoke English, and was well versed in the\nspeculations of modern philosophy. The conversation turned on theological\nquestions, and when pressed by the argument for a Divine Creator, from\ndesign shown in the universe implying intelligence, he replied:\u2014\n\n\u2018No; God cannot _make_ matter. Only artificial things show design, only\nthings which can be made. What do you mean by saying a thing shows\ndesign? You only mean that by trying a man could make it.\u2019\n\nAnd he proceeded to illustrate it thus:\u2014\n\n\u2018You show me a gold ring; the ring shows design, but not the gold; gold\nis an ultimate element, which can neither be made nor destroyed. When men\ncan make a world, then they can prove that this one shows design, for the\nonly way they know of design is by what they make.\u2019\n\nHe went on to argue for the immortality of the soul, and as a consequence\nfor its pre-existence and the transmigration of souls, from the\nconservation of energy; and concluded his argument against the creation\nand government of the world by a comprehensible, anthropomorphic Creator,\nby adducing the existence of evil.\n\n\u2018There is a sickness,\u2019 he said, \u2018called fever and ague; what do you call\nthe medicine to cure that?\u2019\n\n\u2018Quinine.\u2019\n\n\u2018Yes; now we have not found that long; a good God would not have let so\nmany people suffer if He could have given them that. A man found it by\nchance. The sickness and suffering in this life are for wrong done in\nanother life.\u2019\n\nWe may not accept this unproved theory of the cause of sickness and\nsuffering, but it is very interesting to find that candid and intelligent\nminds, brought up in a society and religious beliefs so widely different\nfrom our own, have arrived practically at the same conclusions as John\nStuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, and other leaders of advanced thought in\nmodern Europe, and drawn almost identically the same line between that\nwhich is knowable and that which is unknowable by the human mind.\n\nBut, however large-minded we may become in seeing the good in other\nforms of creed, we English of the nineteenth century are not going to\nturn either pantheists or Buddhists, and practically the contest of the\npresent day is between the supernatural or miraculous, and the natural or\nscientific, hypotheses.\n\nAccording to the former the operations of the universe are carried on to\na considerable extent by what may be called secondary interferences of a\nsupernatural being, who with will, intelligence, and design, like human\nthough vastly superior, frequently interposes to alter the course of\nevents and bring about something which natural law would not have brought\nabout. The other hypothesis cannot be stated better than in Bishop\nTemple\u2019s words, that the Great First Cause created things so perfect\nfrom the first, that no such secondary interferences have ever been\nnecessary, and everything has been and is evolved from the primary atoms\nand energies in a necessary and invariable succession. The supernatural\nand the natural theories of the universe are thus brought into direct\nantagonism.\n\nFor the supernatural theory it must be conceded that it is quite\nconceivable, as is proved by the fact that it has been the almost\nuniversal conception of mankind for ages, and remains so still for the\ngreater number. It is, as I have said, the inevitable first conception\nwhen men began to reflect on the phenomena of the universe, and to reason\nfrom effects to causes. I have always thought that Hume went too far in\ncondemning miracles as absolutely incredible _a priori_. It is a question\nof evidence. _A priori_, I can conceive that the true explanation of the\nuniverse might have been natural law, as the general rule, supplemented\nby miracles; just as readily as that it is law always, and miracle never.\nThe verdict must be decided by the weight of evidence. The two theories\nmust be called, face to face, before the tribunal of _fact_, and its\ndecision must be respected. This is exactly what has been going on for\nthe last two centuries, and specially for the last half century, and the\nrecord of decisions is now a very ample one. In every single instance law\nhas carried the day against miracle.\n\nInstance after instance has occurred in which phenomena which in former\nages were attributed without hesitation to supernatural agencies have\nbeen conclusively proved to be due to natural laws. Take the obvious\ninstance of thunder. When Horace wrote:\u2014\n\n    Jam satis terris nivis, atque dir\u00e6\n    Grandinis misit Pater, et rubente\n    Dextera sacras jaculatus arces\n        Terruit urbem,\n\nhe wrote to a public to whom it was an undoubted article of faith that\nthunder and lightning, hail and snowstorms, came direct from the Father\nof the gods in the sky. Even to a late period this was the general\nfaith, and the prayers in our rubric for rain or fine weather remain\nas a survival of the belief that these things, when unusual or in\nexcess, are supernatural manifestations. But Benjamin Franklin said,\n\u2018No, there is nothing supernatural about lightning. I will bring it\ndown from the clouds and manufacture it by turning a wheel.\u2019 Appeal\nbeing made to _fact_, the verdict is that Franklin was right, and that\nlightning-conductors protect ships and houses better than prayers or\nincantations. Again, when Galileo and the Church joined issue as to\nwhether the earth was round or flat, inspiration and authority were\ncited in vain for the received theory; _fact_ said it was round, and\nit was proved to be so by men sailing round it. The law of gravity was\nconsidered a very dangerous heresy, and for a long time pious divines\nheld out against its conclusions, and contended that it was no better\nthan atheism to doubt that comets were signs of God\u2019s anger sent to warn\na sinful world. But Halley calculated the time of his comet\u2019s return\naccording to the laws of gravity, and appeal being made to fact, the\ncomet returned true to time.\n\nThis has occurred so often that few are left who doubt the universal\nprevalence of law in the material universe, where former generations saw\nmiracles at every turn. Nor is the defeat of miracle less conspicuous\nin the spiritual world. Where former ages and rude races saw, and still\nsee, possession by evil spirits, modern doctors see fevers, epilepsies,\nor insanity. Once more appeal being made to _fact_, the old medicine-men\nadministered incantations, the new ones quinine\u2014which cure the most\npatients?\n\nIn like manner demonology and witchcraft, with all their train of\ncruelties and horrors, once universally believed even by men like Justice\nHale, have passed into oblivion as completely as the Lami\u00e6, Phorkyads,\nand other fantastic figures of the classical Walpurgisnight. Is the\nworld the better or the worse for this triumph of natural law over\nsupernaturalism?\n\nThe triumph has been so complete in innumerable instances, without\na single one to the contrary, that belief in the permanence and\nuniversality of natural law has become almost an instinct in all educated\nminds, and even those who cling to old beliefs must admit that the most\ncogent and irresistible evidence is requisite to establish the fact of a\nreal supernatural interference. It may be taken as an axiom that wherever\na natural explanation is possible, a miraculous one is impossible.\n\nNow this is just the point on which, as knowledge has increased, the\nevidence for miracles has become weaker, almost in the exact ratio in\nwhich the necessity for evidence has become stronger.\n\nTake, for instance, the following case recorded by Dr. Braid of Glasgow.\nMiss R. had suffered from ophthalmia and was totally blind. She could\nnot discern a single letter of the title-page of a book placed close\nto her, though some of the letters were a quarter of an inch long. Dr.\nBraid placed the patient in a condition of hypnotism or artificial\nsomnambulism, and directed the nervous force, or sustained attention of\nthe mind, to the eyes by wafting over them. After a first sitting of\nabout ten minutes she was able to read a great part of the title-page,\nand after four more sittings she was able to read the smallest-sized\nprint in a newspaper, and was quite cured for the rest of her life. In\nanother case, that of Mrs. S., blindness of the left eye had occurred\nowing to an attack of rheumatic fever, the structure of the eye, both\nexternal and internal, being considerably injured, and more than half the\ncornea covered by an opaque film. After a few sittings the cornea became\ntransparent, and the patient was cured.\n\nIn both these cases the blind were made to see by processes which were\npurely mechanical, for hypnotism was induced by the simple means of\nmaking the patient strain her attention on some fixed idea or object,\ncommonly on a black wafer stuck on a white wall, and the stimulation\nof the optic nerve to greater activity did the rest. And if the blind\ncould be made to see, _a fortiori_ the deaf were made to hear, and the\nlame and halt to walk, by the same mechanical process. Here there is an\nexplanation of nine-tenths of all recorded miracles by purely natural\ncauses.\n\nAgain, take the well-known case of the Berlin bookseller, Nicolai, who,\nhaving fallen into ill-health, for a whole year saw, when awake, visions\nso real and palpable that he may be said to have lived in the company of\ndisembodied spirits, undistinguishable from actual men and women. This is\na common phenomenon in vivid dreams, but the Berlin case takes us a step\nfarther, and shows us how subjective impressions may assume the form of\nobjective realities, even in the case of a man wide awake, of a sceptical\nturn of mind, and in full possession of his reasoning faculties. Why\nthen should we be driven to the alternative of miracle or imposture, to\naccount for similar dreams or visions being taken for objective realities\nby enthusiastic minds, living in an atmosphere of religious excitement,\nin an uncritical age, when supernatural occurrences were considered to\nbe matters of course? And history is full of instances which show how\nany supernatural germ, planted in such a medium, propagates itself and\nextends to millions, almost as rapidly as the bacillus germ does in an\nepidemic of small-pox. St. Vitus\u2019s dance, or the dancing mania, ran the\nround of Europe like the potato disease, and even yet survives in the\nhysterical affections of the sect of Shakers. The gift of tongues spread\nlike wildfire through Irving\u2019s congregation, and only died out because it\nhad fallen on the uncongenial soil of the nineteenth century; even the\nstory of the tail of the lion over the gateway of the old Northumberland\nHouse being seen by many passers-by to wag because one had asserted it,\nillustrates the contagiousness of nervous sympathy, and the tricks which\n\u2018strong imagination\u2019 can play with the senses.\n\nAnother great blow has been dealt against the miraculous theory by what\ncan only be called the singular want of intelligence displayed in the\nexercise of miraculous power as commonly recorded. The _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_,\nor effect desired to be produced by miracles, is to convert mankind from\nsin, or to attest a divine mission by convincing proofs. Even ordinary\nhuman intelligence\u2014and how much more so that of a superior Being\u2014must see\nthat to attain this end the means must be to make the proof convincing.\nThere is no reason in itself why it should not be so. The fact that a man\nwho was alive and signed a will is now dead, is attested as regards the\nlatter proposition by a proper medical certificate, and as regards the\nformer by two credible witnesses, who are prepared to come into court,\ngive their names and addresses, depose on oath to the signature, and\nstand cross-examination. If this testimony is required to establish a\nfact so antecedently probable as that one particular man has undergone\nthe common fate of millions of millions of other men, that is to say,\nthat he has died after being alive, how much more must it be requisite\nto establish the fact so antecedently improbable, as that one man\namong those many millions after having died came back to life. And yet\nwhere is the recorded miracle for which even this _minimum_ amount of\ntestimony is forthcoming? Why are miracles so constantly performed in\nholes and corners, in obscure localities, among little knots of ignorant\nand enthusiastic adherents, attested by the vaguest hearsay evidence\nof unknown or incompetent witnesses, and apparently under circumstances\ninevitably calculated to defeat their object and engender doubts in\nthe minds of reasonable and conscientious men. Take, for instance, the\nmiracles now said to be wrought at Lourdes. The object must be taken to\nbe to convert infidel France to the Catholic faith. But obviously this\nobject would be far better attained by a single undoubted miracle wrought\nat Paris before a commission headed by a man like Pasteur, than by any\nnumber of miracles scarcely, if at all, distinguishable from those of Dr.\nBraid, alleged to occur at an obscure village in the presence of peasants\nand pilgrims. Or, take a higher instance, that of the demand made by the\nPharisees to Jesus for a sign to attest his Messiahship. Consider the\ncircumstances of the case, and see if it is at all possible that if he\nhad possessed the power of working miracles he should have replied, \u2018Why\ndoth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, there\nshall no sign be given unto this generation\u2019 (St. Mark ix. 12). In the\nfirst place the statement throws discredit upon all the miracles said to\nhave been wrought, by the positive and explicit declaration that none\nshould be wrought. But beyond this, the very essence of the mission of\nJesus was contained in the words, \u2018Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven\nis at hand.\u2019 He had a firm conviction that the kingdom of heaven, or a\nmillennium of peace and goodwill, was close at hand, and its advent only\nretarded by the sinfulness and want of faith of his chosen people. He\nthought it his bounden duty to do all he could to remove the obstacle and\nexpedite the coming of the kingdom. With this conviction, though fully\nseeing the risk and counting the cost, when he found that he was making\nno decided headway by preaching in a remote province, he determined to go\nto Jerusalem and make there one great effort to accomplish his object.\nCan it be doubted that he would use every means in his power to carry\nhis mission to a successful conclusion? If, having the power to do so by\nworking a miracle, he had refused, he would from his point of view have\nbeen guilty of a great sin\u2014that of preventing the coming of the kingdom\nof heaven.\n\nAgain, who were the Pharisees? No doubt there were formalists and\nhypocrites among them, but the position of the sect in the Jewish nation\nwas almost exactly similar to that of the English Puritans in the reign\nof Charles. They were the embodiment of the patriotic and religious\nspirit of the race, the sons of the heroic fathers who fought under Judas\nMaccabeus against Antiochus, the fathers of the equally heroic sons who\nmade the last desperate stand against the legions of Titus. It was their\nduty, when a claim to Messiahship was advanced, before departing from\nthe traditions of their ancestors, to require evidence. The universally\nexpected evidence of a temporal deliverer being wanting, there remained\nonly the evidence of miracles, which, moreover, were assigned as the test\nof a Messiah by all their prophets. To refuse them a sign, if a sign were\npossible, was to do injustice to many sincere and conscientious men.\nNay, more, it was an act of cruelty if leaving them in their old faith\nentailed eternal punishment. The same thing applies to all records of\nmiracles. They are never wrought under circumstances where they would be\nthe most effective means for attaining proposed ends. They are never\nwrought under circumstances which leave them clear of the suspicion\nof being subjective illusions or misinterpretations of effects due to\nnatural causes. They never convince any but those who are more than half\nconvinced already.\n\nIt would be easy to multiply instances showing the inadequacy of the\nevidence adduced to establish such an exceptional and extraordinary fact\nas the occurrence of a real miracle. But it is unnecessary to do so,\nas all thinking minds have come, or are fast coming, to the conclusion\nof Dr. Temple, that \u2018all the countless varieties of the universe were\nprovided for by one original impress, and not by special acts of creation\nmodifying what had previously been made.\u2019\n\nIt is only when we look behind the phenomena of the universe at this\nGreat First Cause, that I see anything to object to in the definition\nof Dr. Temple, and of Christian philosophers generally. They assume it\nto be a personal Deity, who is to a great extent known or knowable, and\ntherefore must have attributes conformable to human perceptions which\nare the basis of all human knowledge. In other words, however much we\nmay purify and enlarge these attributes, He must be essentially an\nanthropomorphic God or magnified man. To this theory there seems to me\nto be this fatal objection, that it gives no account of the origin of\nevil, or rather that it makes the Divine Creator directly responsible\nfor it. The existence of evil in the world is as palpable a fact as the\nexistence of good. There are many things which to our human perceptions\nappear to be base, cruel, foul, and ugly, just as clearly as other things\nappear to be noble, merciful, pure, and beautiful. Whence come they?\nIf the existence of good proves a good Creator, how can we escape the\ninference that the existence of evil proves an evil one? This is never\nso forcibly impressed on me as when I read the arguments of those who\ninsist most strongly on the conception of a one, anthropomorphic God.\nWhen Carlyle says, \u2018All that is good, generous, wise, right\u2014whatever I\ndeliberately and for ever love in others and myself\u2014who or what could\nby any possibility have given it to me but One who first had it to\ngive? This is not logic, but axiom.\u2019 I cannot but picture to myself the\nsledgehammer force with which, if he had approached the question without\nprepossessions, he would have come down on the cant, the insincerity, the\ntreason to the eternal veracities, which refused to look facts in the\nface, and apply the same reasoning to the evil. Or if Arnold defines the\nDeity as the \u2018Something not ourselves which makes for righteousness,\u2019 how\nof the Something not ourselves which makes for unrighteousness? The only\nescape I can find from this dilemma is to accept existing facts and not\nevade them. It is a fact that polarity is the law of existence. Why we\nknow not, any more than we know the real essence and origin of the atoms\nand energies which are our other ultimate facts. But we accept atoms and\nenergies, and accept the law of gravity and other laws; why not accept\nalso the law of polarity, and admit that it is part of the \u2018original\nimpress\u2019: one of the fundamental conditions under which the evolution of\nCreation from its ultimate elements is necessitated to proceed. This the\nhuman mind can understand; beyond it is the great unknown or unknowable,\nin presence of which we can only feel emotions of reverence and of awe,\nand \u2018faintly trust the larger hope\u2019 that duality may somehow ultimately\nbe merged in unity, evil in good, and \u2018every winter turn to spring.\u2019\n\nAs nations advanced in civilisation there has always been a tendency\namong the higher and purer minds to relegate the Great First Cause\nfurther and further back into the unknown, and to divest it of\nanthropomorphic attributes. When Socrates said, \u2018that divinely revealed\nwisdom of which you speak, I deny not, inasmuch as I do not know it;\nI can only understand human reason,\u2019 he spoke the identical language\nof Darwin, Spencer, Huxley, and those leaders of modern thought whom\ntheologians call agnostics. Even in religions based on the idea of a\nsingle anthropomorphic Deity the same tendency often appears among the\nhighest thinkers. Thus Emmanuel Deutsch, in his learned work on the\nTalmud, tells us, \u2018Its first chapter treats of the Deity as conceived\nby Jewish philosophy. The existence of God is, of course, presupposed.\nBut what of His attributes? Has He any? Scripture literally taken seems\nto affirm this. Yet taken in a higher sense, as understood by the\nAlexandrines, the Talmud, and the Targum, it denies it.\u2019\n\nThe great Jewish doctors, Ibn Ezra, Jehuda Hilmi, and Maimonides, take\nthis view of a divine origin shrouded in ineffable mystery. Maimonides\nsays, \u2018If you give attributes to a thing, you define this thing, and\ndefining a thing means to bring it under some head, to compare it with\nsomething like it. God is sole of His kind. Determine Him, circumscribe\nHim, and you bring Him down to the modes and categories of created\nthings.\u2019 Even St. Paul says, \u2018O the depths of God. How unsearchable are\nHis judgments, and how inscrutable His ways\u2019; and the Creed of our own\nChurch, in the midst of a string of definitions all implying that God is\ncomprehensible, has the words \u2018the Father incomprehensible.\u2019\n\nIt is evident that the reasons why these anticipations of the prevailing\ntendency of modern thought only appeared by glimpses, and among a\nvery limited number of philosophic minds, arose from the fact that\nthe miraculous theory of the universe everywhere prevailed. Every\nunusual occurrence was supposed to be owing to the direct supernatural\ninterference of a Being acting in the main with human attributes, and\ntherefore to be a direct refutation of the theory which denied the\npossibility of defining His attributes, and relegated Him to the dim\ndistance of an incomprehensible Creator. With the utter breakdown of the\nmiraculous theory, and the certainty that all the countless varieties\nof the universe arise, not from special interferences, but from one\noriginal impress, this theory of a reverent and devout agnosticism\nbecomes impregnable and holds the field against all rivals. It, and it\nalone, is consistent with the facts of science, the deductions of reason,\nthe axioms of morality, while at the same time it denies nothing, and\nleaves an ample background on which to paint the visions of faith, and to\nreflect back to us spectral images of our hopes and fears, our longings\nand aspirations.\n\nSome seek for a solution of the mystery, and try to reconcile the\nexistence of evil with that of an almighty and beneficent Creator, by\nassuming that in the long run everything will come right. Evolution, they\nsay, has led constantly to higher and better things, and when carried far\nenough will lead to a state of society in which wars will cease, evil\npassions die out, and universal love and charity prevail\u2014in other words,\nto a millennium.\n\nEven if this were true, what of the untold millions of the human race who\nhave perished in their sins while evolution was slowly working out this\ntardy millennium? Are they the _chair \u00e0 canons_, whom a Napoleon-like\nDeity sacrifices with cynical indifference, in the calculated moves of\nthe game of Creation? Is this their idea of an all-wise and all-merciful\nFather who is in heaven?\n\nAnd again, is it true that evolution works constantly for good and\npromises to bring about such a millennium? It is doubtless true that\nevolution means progress, and the ever-increasing development of the\nmore and more complex and differentiated from the simple and uniform.\nBut is this all for good, or all for happiness; and is not evolution,\nlike everything else, subject to the primary and all-pervading law of\npolarity? We have only to ask the question to answer it. In the case\nof the individual, which is the epitome of the history of the species,\nis development from the engaging innocence of childhood always in the\ndirection of goodness and happiness?\n\nSo far is this from being the case that, as individuals and societies\nadvance, and become higher and more complex in the scale of organisation,\nthe law of polarity asserts itself with ever-increasing force, and\ncontrasts become sharper. The good become better, the bad worse; and as\nwe become less\n\n    Like the beasts with lower pleasures,\n    Like the beasts with lower pains,\n\nif our happiness becomes more intense, so does our misery become more\nintolerable. I refer not merely to physical conditions, though here the\ncontrast is most apparent. An intelligent traveller who recently circled\nthe world, surveying mankind with a keen and impartial eye \u2018from China to\nPeru,\u2019 says, as the result of his experience, \u2018The traveller will not see\nin all his wanderings so much abject repulsive misery among human beings\nin the most heathen lands, as that which startles him in his civilised\nChristian home, for nowhere are the extremes of wealth and poverty so\npainfully presented.\u2019 This is perfectly true; but it would be a rash\nconclusion to infer that civilised and Christian countries are worse than\nheathen lands, or that those who march in the van of progress and succeed\nin the struggle for life, have a larger dose of original sin than the\nlaggards and those who fail.\n\nAccumulations of population and accumulations of capital are alike causes\nand effects of progress in an industrial age. But you can no more have a\nnorth without a south pole, than you can have this progress without its\ncounterpart of suffering. When an educated gentleman was, like the good\nvicar,\n\n    Passing rich with forty pounds a year,\n\nhow many struggles and how many heart-aches were avoided. When \u2018merry\nEngland\u2019 dwelt in rural hamlets and villages, the \u2018bitter cry\u2019 of East\nLondon could scarcely have been written. Turn it as you like, increase of\npopulation means increase of poverty. Say that only five per cent. fail\nin the battle of life, from their own or inherited faults; from bad luck,\nill-health, weakness of mind, adverse surroundings; five per cent. on\nthirty millions is a larger figure than five per cent. on ten millions.\nAnd the lot of those who fail is aggravated by the success of those who\nsucceed. The scale of living rises, and the cost of living increases,\nwhile competition becomes keener. Increase of population in a limited\narea means increased difficulty of finding employment; and the complex\nrelations of international commerce send panics and crises vibrating\nthroughout the world, which throw millions out of work, or reduce them\nto starvation wages. In simple forms of society every one accepts the\ncondition in which he finds himself as a matter of course, while in a\nmore complex civilisation the fiend Envy steps in, and teaches the baser\nnatures who are failures, to regard every success as an insult and every\nsuccessful man as an enemy. Hence Labour rises in mad revolt against\nCapital; Socialists attack society with dynamite; and Utopian theorists\npreach a millennium to be attained by abolishing private property and\nindividual liberty.\n\nIf we turn to the moral aspects of the question, it is still more\nclear that evolution does not tend solely to the side of virtue.\nThere is doubtless less ferocious savagery, less rude and unconscious\nor half-conscious crime, in civilised societies, but there is far\nmore deliberate and diabolical wickedness. The very temptations and\nopportunities which, if resisted, lead to higher virtues, if succumbed\nto, lead to greater vice. Even the intellectual advance, if perverted,\nbecomes the instrument of greater crimes. A chemist discovers\nnitro-glycerine, and dynamite becomes a resource of civilisation. There\nis a saying that there is \u2018no blackguard so bad as a Scotch blackguard,\u2019\nwhich, as a patriotic Scotchman, I take to be a tribute to the generally\nhigh intellectual and moral character of my countrymen. A powerful\npolarity is powerful, as the case may be, either for good or evil. Why\nthen should we believe that evolution, which, carried thus far, has\ndeveloped more strongly the contrast between good and evil, will, if\ncarried a little farther, extinguish it by annihilating the evil?\n\nIn fact, the good and evil resulting from the higher evolution of society\nare so equally balanced that it depends very much on place, time, and\ntemperament whether we are optimists or pessimists. If my liver acts\nproperly I am an optimist; if it is out of order, a pessimist. Personally\nI incline to optimism\u2014that is, I think that this world, if not exactly\n\u2018the best of all possible worlds,\u2019 is yet on the whole a very tolerable\nworld, and that life to the majority, and on the average, is worth\nliving. I think also that progress is certainly towards higher, and very\nprobably towards happier, conditions. It seems to me that in the most\nadvanced English-speaking communities, the condition of at least one\nhalf\u2014viz. the female half\u2014of the population is distinctly better, and\nthat the working class, who form the majority of the male half, though\nmany are worse off than formerly, are, on the whole, better fed, better\nclothed, better educated, and better behaved.\n\nThis, however, is perhaps very much a matter of temperament. Greater\nminds than mine have seen things differently and inclined to pessimism.\nBuddhism, and almost all Oriental religions and philosophies, are based\nupon it, and look to Nirvana or annihilation of personal identity as the\nsupreme bliss. Pauline Christianity assumes that all mankind, except a\nfew chosen vessels, are so hopelessly bad as to be predestined to eternal\ndamnation. And even more remarkable, Shakespeare, the universal genius,\nwho one would say had as happy a temperament and led as successful a\nlife as any man, had his moods of despondency in which he could say:\u2014\n\n    When in disgrace with fortune and men\u2019s eyes,\n      I all alone bemoan my outcast state;\n    Wearying deaf heaven with my fruitless cries,\n      And look upon myself, and _curse my fate_.\n\nOr declare with Hamlet that no one would bear the ills of life if\n\n    He himself could his quietus make\n    With a bare bodkin.\n\nWith instances like these, and the disgust of life manifested in so\nmany modern societies by the increase of suicides, and the spread of\npessimistic theories like those of Schopenhauer and Hartmann, who can\ndeny that the great magnet of modern civilisation has a south as well as\na north pole, and that progress is not all towards perfection?\n\nThe attempts of theologians to reconcile the existence of evil with the\ngoodness of an almighty Creator, by relegating the adjustment to a future\nlife, only make the fact of this fundamental polarity more apparent, for\ntheir conceptions of a heaven and a hell obviously do not reconcile, but\nonly intensify, the opposite polarities. The good are better, the bad\nworse, the happy happier, and the wretched more miserable, in all these\nattempts to define the undefinable and to reconcile divine justice with\ndivine mercy. All that remains really clear to each individual is that\nby his efforts in this life he can do something to keep the balance of\npolarities somewhat more on the side of good, both in his own individual\nexistence, and in that of the aggregate of units, of which he is one,\nwhich is called society or humanity.\n\nThe great advantage of this form of religious hypothesis, which for want\nof a better name I call Zoroastrianism, is that, in the first place, it\ngets rid of the antagonism between religion and science, for there is no\npossible discovery of science which is irreconcilable with the fact that\nthere is a necessary and inevitable polarity of good and evil, and in the\nbackground a great unknown, which may be regarded with those feelings\nand aspirations which are inseparable from human nature. And secondly,\nthere is the still greater advantage that we can devote ourselves with\na whole heart and sincere mind to the worship of the good principle,\nwithout paltering with our moral nature by professing to love and adore a\nBeing who is the author of all the evil and misery in the world as well\nas of the good. If it were really true that there were such a Being as\ntheologians describe, who created the immense majority of the human race\nvessels of wrath doomed to eternal punishment, either from pure caprice\nor to avenge the slight offered to Him by the disobedience of a remote\nancestor, what would be the attitude of every healthy human soul towards\nsuch a Being? Rather that of Prometheus or Satan, than of Gabriel or\nMichael; of heroic defiance than of abject submission. We may gloss this\nover in words, but the fact remains, and it is difficult to overestimate\nthe amount of evil which has resulted in the world from this confusion of\nmoral sentiments which has made good men do devil\u2019s work in the belief\nthat it had divine sanction.\n\nThe horrors of demonology and witchcraft had their origin in texts of\nthe Old Testament; religious wars and persecutions arose out of the\nfundamental error that intellectual acceptance of doubtful dogmas was the\none thing necessary for salvation; and ruthless cruelty was justified\nby an appeal to God\u2019s anger with Saul for refusing to hew in pieces the\ncaptive Amalekites. A follower of Zoroaster would see at once that these\nwere works of Ahriman and not of Ormuzd, and that in taking part in them\nhe was deserting the standard under which he had enlisted, and doing\ndeeds of darkness while pretending to serve the Prince of Light. This\nidea of being a soldier enlisted in the army of light seems to me to\nafford one of the strongest practical inducements to hate what is evil\nand cleave to what is good. A bad deed or foul thought is felt to be not\nonly wrong but dishonourable: a disloyal going over to the enemy and\nabandonment of the chief under whom we had enlisted, and of the comrades\nwith whom we had served. This is a very strong motive, and even in the\nhumble ranks of the Salvation Army we can see how powerfully it operates\nto make men true to their banner.\n\nIndeed a great deal of what is best in genuine Christianity seems to me\nto resolve itself very much into the worship of Jesus as the Ormuzd or\npersonification of the good principle, and determination to try to follow\nhis example and do his work. It happens to me to receive a good many\ncirculars from the devoted men and women who are doing so much charitable\nwork to assist the poor and fallen, and I observe that the appeals are\nalmost constantly made in the name of Jesus. When the Salvation Army\nmade an appeal the other day to its members for funds to prosecute\ntheir campaign, it was touching to read the replies and see men parting\nwith an overcoat or giving up their beer, and women going without a new\nbonnet or cup of tea, to contribute their mite. But always for the\n\u2018love of Jesus,\u2019 for the \u2018Saviour\u2019s sake,\u2019 as an offering to the \u2018dear\nRedeemer.\u2019 Theological Christianity says that the one thing needful is\nto believe in the Catholic Faith as defined by the Athanasian Creed,\nwithout which we shall \u2018without doubt perish everlastingly.\u2019 Practical\nChristianity has completely dropped the Holy Ghost as a sort of fifth\nwheel to the coach, and relegated the Father into ever vaguer and greater\ndistance; while it has fastened more and more on the figure of Jesus of\nNazareth as the practical living embodiment of the good principle of the\nuniverse. In a word, Christianity, as it has become more reasonable, more\ncharitable, more pure, and more elevated, has approximated more and more\nto Zoroastrianism, and for practical purposes modern Christians are, to a\ngreat extent, without knowing it, worshippers of Ormuzd, with Christ for\ntheir Ormuzd.\n\nTo this I see no sort of objection. The tendency to personify abstract\nprinciples in something which is warmer, dearer, nearer to ourselves,\nis ineradicable in human nature; and especially among the great masses\nof mankind who cannot rise to the height of philosophical speculations.\nIt is impossible in the present age to invent new personifications,\nor to revive old ones. Jesus has the immense advantage of being in\npossession of the field, with all the accumulated love and reverence\nof nineteen centuries of followers. It would be difficult to invent a\nbetter ideal or a more perfect example. No doubt the ideal, like all\nhuman conceptions, is not absolutely perfect; it is subject to the law of\npolarity, and its excellences, if pushed to the \u2018falsehood of extremes,\u2019\nin many cases become faults. It would not do in practice if smitten\non one cheek to turn the other, or to take no thought for the morrow\nand live like the sparrows. The opposition between the flesh and the\nspirit is also stated so absolutely, that it is apt to lead to a barren\nand ignoble asceticism. But those are elements which, practically, are\nnot likely to be pushed to excess, and which serve rather to mitigate\nthe tendencies of modern civilisation to an undue preponderance of the\nopposite polarities of selfishness, worldliness, and sensuality. Courage,\nhardihood, self-reliance, foresight, a love of progress, and a desire to\nattain independence, will always remain prominent virtues, especially\nof the stronger races, and the gentler teachings of Christianity will\nlong be wanted as an influence to soften, to elevate, and to purify.\nBy all means, therefore, let Christians remain Christians, and see in\nChrist their Ormuzd, or personification of the good principle. Only let\nthem remember that there are two sides to every question, and cease to\nentertain hard and bitter thoughts towards those who follow the truth\nafter a different fashion. Let them delight rather to discover unity in\nthe spirit than differences in the letter, and instead of anathematising\nwith Athanasius those who dissent by one hair\u2019s breadth from the Catholic\nfaith, strive with St. Paul after that charity which \u2018suffereth long and\nis kind: beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things,\nendureth all things.\u2019\n\nThis will be easier if they recollect that love and reverence for Jesus,\nas the personification of the good principle, is in no way connected\nwith the supernatural dogmas and legends which have come down from\nsuperstitious ages, and which are seen every day, more and more clearly,\nto stand in direct contradiction to the real facts and real laws of the\nuniverse. He is the bright example of the highest ideal of human virtue,\nnot on account of miracles, but in spite of them; not because he was a\ntranscendental abstraction with attributes altogether outside of human\nexperience or conception; but because he was a man whom other men can\nlove and other men can strive to imitate. The dogmas and miracles may\nquietly fade out of sight, as so many articles of the Athanasian Creed\nhave already done, like mists before the rising rays of larger knowledge\nand purer morality, and yet the essence of Christianity will remain, as a\nworship of the good and beautiful, personified in the brightest example\nwhich has been afforded\u2014that of Jesus, the son of the carpenter of\nNazareth.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND MORALS.\n\n    Christianity based on morals\u2014Origin of morality\u2014Traced\n    in Judaism\u2014Originates in evolution\u2014Instance of\n    murder\u2014Freedom of will\u2014Will suspended in certain states of\n    brain\u2014Hypnotism\u2014Mechanical theory\u2014Pre-established harmony\u2014Human\n    and animal conscience\u2014Analysis of will\u2014Explained by\n    polarity\u2014Practical conclusion.\n\n\nThe great advantage which Christianity possesses over most other\nreligions is that it is based to a much greater extent on the solid\nfoundation of an elevated morality. The creeds of ancient Egypt, of\nBuddhism, and of Confucianism contain many excellent moral precepts;\nand the injunctions to \u2018do unto others as you would be done by,\u2019 and\nto \u2018love your neighbour as yourself,\u2019 are to be found long before the\nSermon on the Mount. But these religions in the main followed other lines\nof development, and branched off either into metaphysical conceptions\nor into formal rites and ceremonies. With the exception of Judaism, of\nwhich Christianity is the lineal descendant, no religion has ever to the\nsame extent become to the great mass of its adherents a rule of conduct\nand an incentive, strengthened by divine sanction, to lead pure and\nupright lives. This is the sense in which Christianity has always been\nunderstood by the vast majority of Christians, and its corruptions have\ncome much more from above than from below; from theologians, priests,\nand politicians, than from the instincts of the millions; and this it\nis which enables it to retain such a wonderful vitality even in modern\ntimes, when faith in dogmas and miracles has been so greatly weakened.\nIn order to appreciate the solidity of this basis it is necessary to\nunderstand the origin of morals, and to see that the fundamental precepts\nof moral law are not mere chance inventions of a few exceptional minds,\nor the teachings of doubtful revelations, but are the necessary growth\nand products of human nature, in the course of the evolution of society\nfrom rude beginnings to a high civilisation. This gives them a certainty\nand sanction which could be derived from no other source, and makes them\nwhat in fact they have become\u2014almost primary instincts of the natural and\nnormal mind in civilised communities. I proceed, therefore, to endeavour\nto trace shortly the process by which moral laws have originated and\ngrown up to their present certainty and cogency in the course of\nevolution.\n\nAs I have already said, the element of morality is one of the latest to\nbe developed in religious conceptions. The first impressions of savage\nraces reflect the feelings of vague superstitious terror with which\nthey regard unknown phenomena and powers. They are afraid of ghosts and\nafraid of thunder, long before they rise to a belief in a future state\nof rewards and punishments, or to the notion of an almighty Being acting\nby natural laws. In a higher state of development they personify natural\npowers in gods, who have no more idea of morality than if they were so\nmany parallels of latitude or degrees of longitude; and they invent\ntribal gods, who are simply great chiefs, bound by no laws, but granting\nfavours when appeased and inflicting injuries when angry. By slow\ndegrees, as civilisation advances, moral ideas are evolved, and the more\nenlightened minds begin to attribute moral attributes to their deities.\nEarnest men, prophets, and reformers take up these ideas and preach them\nto the world, and, if circumstances are favourable and the soil prepared,\nthey take root and become popular convictions, surviving in the struggle\nfor life, and becoming stronger from generation to generation.\n\nThis evolution of moral ideas is most clearly traced in the religious\nhistory of the Jews. In their earlier conceptions Jehovah is represented\nwith all the traits of a jealous and capricious Oriental sultan. The one\nvirtue in his eyes is implicit obedience; the one unpardonable crime,\nanything that looks like disrespect. David is the man after God\u2019s own\nheart, though he commits crimes of the foulest description, and treats\nas nullities the moral commandments against adultery and murder. But\nwhen he takes a census of his people Jehovah is offended, and, with\na total disregard of justice, visits his anger, not on the offender,\nbut on the innocent people whom he decimates by a pestilence. In like\nmanner, Abraham is favoured because he is ready to obey the inhuman\ncommand to sacrifice his son; while Saul loses Jehovah\u2019s favour because\nhe hesitates to massacre his captives in cold blood. The first ideas\nof a higher moral sense appear with the prophets in the troubled times\nof the later kings\u2014when poor little Palestine was being ground between\nthe upper millstone of Assyria and the nether one of Egypt. Sufferings\nand persecutions, anxieties and tribulations, wrought a ferment in the\nJewish mind from which new ideas were generated. Sacrifices had been duly\noffered, and yet the enemies of Jehovah waxed and his chosen people\nwaned. It must be that He was offended with them because He required\nsomething better than the blood of bulls\u2014justice and mercy. So taught\nthe popular preachers of the day\u2014men like Isaiah and Amos\u2014and by degrees\ntheir words found acceptance. It was not, however, until the Captivity\nthat these ideas of morality were wrought into the Jewish nation so as\nto become, so to speak, flesh of their flesh and blood of their blood,\nas they have remained ever since. Whether it was contact with the more\nadvanced moral ideas of religions like those of Buddha and Zoroaster, or,\nmore probably, their sufferings from the cruelty and injustice of their\nconquerors, the Captivity certainly made them a new nation, attached\nardently to morality and monotheism\u2014thus effecting in a few years, and\nby purely human agencies, what, according to received beliefs, centuries\nof miraculous dispensation had failed to accomplish. How speedily and\nhow effectually the work was done appears from that most interesting\nnarrative of the domestic life of a middle-class Jew of Nineveh, the\nBook of Tobit. The simple piety and homely household virtues are almost\nidentically the same as those of many a Jewish family living to-day in\nLondon or Frankfort. From that time forward Jewish morality maintains\na high level, and in the age immediately preceding Christianity it had\nattained great purity and spirituality in the school of the early doctors\nof the Talmud, and of the Jewish colony of Alexandria. The Sermon on\nthe Mount, beautiful as it is, is but an admirable _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of maxims\nwhich are to be found in the works of Philo and other Jewish teachers,\nand which were current in the synagogues of the day. Hillel, who was\npresident of the Sanhedrin when Christ was born, when asked what was the\nlaw, replied, \u2018Do not unto another what thou wouldst not have another\ndo unto thee. This is the whole Law, the rest is mere commentary.\u2019 And\nagain, \u2018Do not judge thy neighbour until thou hast stood in his place.\u2019\n\nThe Talmud anticipates in a wonderful degree not only the moral precepts\nof the Gospel, but to a great extent its phraseology and technical\nterms. \u2018Redemption,\u2019 \u2018grace,\u2019 \u2018faith,\u2019 \u2018salvation,\u2019 \u2018Son of man,\u2019 \u2018Son\nof God,\u2019 \u2018kingdom of heaven,\u2019 were all, as Deutsch shows, not invented\nby Christianity, but were household words of contemporary Judaism. In\none respect only Christianity shows a higher evolution of morality than\nJudaism\u2014viz. its universality. Pure Judaism hardly rises above the idea\nof \u2018neighbour,\u2019 or those who were of the same race or common faith; while\nChristianity, as enlarged by St. Paul, embraces all mankind, and may\ntruly say: \u2018Humani nihil a me alienum puto.\u2019\n\nThe idea that morality and religion are products of a slowly developing\nevolution is denounced by many as degrading and materialistic. In many\nthe instinct of the \u2018good\u2019 is so strong that it seems to them sacrilege\nto attempt to explain it. They insist that it is either a universal\ninstinct implanted from the first in all mankind, or else that it has\nbeen so implanted by a divine revelation. They forget that, to use the\nvigorous phraseology of Carlyle, \u2018It matters not whether you call a thing\npan-theism or pot-theism; what really concerns us is to know whether it\nis _true_.\u2019 Now it admits of no question that, whether we like it or not,\nthe evolutionist theory of morality is the true one. Take an extreme\ninstance, that of murder. We feel an instinctive horror at the idea,\nand even a brutal ruffian like Bill Sikes becomes an accursed thing to\nhimself and his companions when he has transgressed the commandment \u2018Thou\nshalt do no murder.\u2019 But is it so everywhere, and was it so always? By\nno means; the Fiji islander kills and eats a stranger or enemy without\nscruple; the Red Indian and the Dyak are not accounted men until they\nhave murdered some one and brought home his scalp or his head as a\ntrophy. Even at a late period among ourselves murder was considered to be\nrather as a civil injury, to be met by compensation, than as a crime; and\na regular tariff was established of the amount to be paid according as\nthe victim was a slave or a freeman.\n\nThe origin and progress of the idea that murder is a crime can almost\nbe traced step by step. The wife of a rude savage does something which\noffends him; a violent perception of anger flashes from the visual organ\nto the perceptive area of the brain, and a reflex action flashes from it\nalong the motor nerve to the muscles of the arm. He strikes and kills\nher, almost as unconsciously and instinctively as he walks or breathes.\nBut other perceptions follow on the act. He finds next day that he has\nno one to cook his food; the image of her dying face photographed on his\nbrain is an unpleasant one; and thus by degrees a series of secondary\nperceptions get attached to the primary one of striking when he feels\nangry. If he gets another wife who again provokes him, the primary\nperception calls up the secondary ones, and the nerve-centres of his\nbrain, instead of being solicited only in one direction, are acted on\nin opposite ways by conflicting impressions. He hesitates, and, as\nthe primary impulse of passion is probably the more evanescent, the\nrestraining impulses prevail, and every time they prevail they acquire\nmore strength. Gradually they extend to a conviction that it is both\ninconvenient and disagreeable to kill any one with whom he is closely\nrelated either by family or tribal ties, and that, in a word, murder\ndoes not pay, and is wrong, unless practised on an enemy. This idea\naccumulates by heredity, and evidently those tribes or races in whom it\nis strongest will have an advantage in the struggle for life and be most\nlikely to survive.\n\nFrom this point the idea may be traced historically, deepening and\nwidening from generation to generation as civilisation advances, until\nin the higher races it assumes the form of an instinctive abhorrence of\nmurder in the abstract, as we find it at the present day.\n\nIt is a mistake to suppose that the foundations of morality are in any\nway weakened by thus tracing them up to their first origins. On the\ncontrary, if we consider the matter rightly, they are placed on a much\nmore solid and unassailable basis. If we say that moral laws depend on\na universal instinct implanted in all mankind, faith in them is shaken\nwhenever we read in history, or hear from the report of travellers, of\nwhole nations, constituting from first to last the immense majority\nof the human race, who had none of those ideas which we now consider\nfundamental. If, again, we base them on divine precepts miraculously\nconveyed, every discovery of science and development of thought which\nweakens faith in miracles impairs the basis of morals. And on this\ntheory, hopeless contradictions arise within the sphere of those very\nmoral laws which we seek to establish; as in reconciling the justice and\nmercy of the Creator in revealing this inspired code only to limited\nportions of the human race, and under conditions which leave large scope\nfor legitimate doubt, and which, in point of fact, failed to ensure\nrecognition for its moral precepts among His own chosen people for a long\nperiod after its promulgation.\n\nBut on the scientific theory of the evolution of morality by natural laws\nit stands on an impregnable footing. No one can deny that, as a matter\nof fact, such instincts do prevail, and have become part of the nature\nof all the best men and best races, and that each successive generation\ntends to fix them more firmly. Mathematical laws are not the less certain\nbecause they can be traced back to counting on the fingers, and moral\nlaws will continue to have a certainty and cogency, scarcely inferior to\nthe axioms of mathematics, although we can trace them back to origins as\nrude as the attempts of the Australian savage to extend his perceptions\nof number beyond \u2018one, two, and a great many.\u2019\n\nThe real difficulty is not in tracing the origin of these instincts\nof morality, but in that fundamental difficulty which underlies all\ntheories of reconciling the consciousness of free-will with the material\nattributes with which it is indissolubly associated. Without freedom\nof will there can be no conscience, no right or wrong in acting in\naccordance or otherwise with the instincts of moral law, however those\ninstincts may have been derived. Now it is certain that the will, like\nlife, memory, consciousness, and other mental functions, is, so far as\nhuman knowledge extends, indissolubly connected with matter and natural\nlaws, in the form of certain motions of the cells which form the grey\nsubstance of the nerves and of the nervous ganglia of which the cortex\nof the brain is the most considerable. This is conclusively proved by\nexperiment. We know that, by removing certain portions of the brain of a\ndog or of a pigeon, we can destroy the power of motion while preserving\nthe will, and by removing certain other portions we can destroy the will\nwhile preserving the powers of motion. Take away a certain portion of the\nbrain of a pigeon, and although it retains the power of taking food, it\nhas so totally lost the will to exercise this power that it will starve\nin the midst of abundance, though it can be kept alive by placing the\nfood in its mouth. In like manner, in the human brain there are certain\nportions which, if destroyed by injury or disease, will paralyse the\npower of giving effect to the will by muscular movements, while the\ndestruction of other portions will paralyse the will which originates\nsuch movements. Numerous cases are recorded in medical treatises in\nwhich the will is completely paralysed for the performance of certain\nfunctions, and in such cases the anatomist can lay his finger on the spot\nwhere the brain is affected, and when the brain is dissected after the\ndeath of the patient, it will be found that his prediction is verified,\nand that this region of the brain really was diseased. In sleep also,\nand in abnormal states of the brain such as somnambulism, and mesmerism\nor hypnotism, the action of the will is suspended. Hypnotism affords the\nmost remarkable instances, for here the will seems to be transferred from\nthe Ego or individuality of the patient to that of the operator, and the\ncurrents of nervous energy which induce motion in A are set going by\nimpulses in the mind of A, not caused by his own will, but by that of B,\nconveyed by words, gestures, or other subtle indications. A ludicrous\ninstance of this is recorded by Dr. Braid, in which an old lady, who had\na true puritanical abhorrence of dancing as sinful, being hypnotised,\nbegan capering about the room when a waltz tune was struck up, on being\ntold to do so by the operators.\n\nThere are some other curious effects produced by hypnotism, in the way of\ninducing a sort of double consciousness and memory, which makes people in\nthis condition totally forget things which they remember when awake, and\nremember things which were totally forgotten in the waking state.\n\nThese and a variety of other instances point to the conclusion that\nman is only a conscious machine. In other words, that the original\nimpress, to use Dr. Temple\u2019s words, was so perfect that it provided a\npre-established harmony not only for the innumerable phenomena of the\nmaterial universe as unfolded by evolution, but for the still more\ninnumerable phenomena of life in all its manifestations and all its\ncomplex relations to outward environment. I say of _life_, for we clearly\ncannot confine the theory to human life. A dog, who with the two courses\nbefore him of doing wrong and chasing a rabbit, or doing right and\nremaining at his master\u2019s heel, chooses one of them, is in exactly the\nsame position as Hercules between the rival attractions of virtue and\npleasure. If Hercules acted as a machine, yielding to the pre-established\npreponderance of the stronger attraction, so did the dog; but if Hercules\nexerted free-will and felt the approval or blame of conscience, so did\nthe retriever. There is no fundamental distinction, but merely a question\nof degree, between human conscience and the shame which a dog feels when\nit knows that it has done wrong, and the pleasure which it manifests\nwhen conscious that it has behaved properly.\n\nShall we thus conclude, as Leibnitz and other great philosophers have\ndone, in favour of the mechanical theory? But if we do, how are we to\naccount for the instinctive ineradicable feeling, which comes home to\nevery one with a conviction even stronger than the evidence of the\nsenses, that we really have a choice between opposite courses, and can\ndecide on our own actions\u2014a conviction which is obviously the foundation\nof all conscience and of all morality?\n\nLet us try to analyse more closely what Will really means, and under what\nconditions it is manifested. The circuit which connects any one single\nperception with action, through sensory nerve, sensory centre, motor\ncentre, motor nerve and muscle, is as purely mechanical as that of an\nelectric circuit. Reflex motions such as breathing, and even more complex\nmotions which by repetition have become reflex or instinctive, are also\nmechanical and involve no exercise of will. But when perceptions become\ncomplex, and one primary evokes a number of secondary perceptions\u2014in\nother words, when the cells of the corresponding portions of grey matter\nin the cortex of the brain are set vibrating by a variety of complex\nand conflicting molecular motions, the feeling of free-will inevitably\narises. We feel the conviction that there is a something which we call\nsoul, mind, or in the last analysis, \u2018I myself I,\u2019 which sits, as Von\nMoltke might do, in a cabinet receiving conflicting telegraphic messages\nfrom different generals, and deciding then and there what order to flash\nout in reply.\n\nWhat can we say to this? That it is like space and time, one of the\ncategories of thought, or primary moulds in which thought is cast. We do\nnot know what space and time really are in their essence, or why they are\nthe necessary conditions of thought, any more than we do in the case of\nwill. They may be illusions, but we accept them, and of necessity accept\nthem, as facts. For all practical purposes it is the same to us, as if\nwe understood their essence and knew them to be realities. A man can no\nmore doubt that he is an individual being, with a will which, in a great\nmany cases, enables him to decide which of a variety of impulses shall\nprevail, than he can hesitate, if he is furnishing a room, to regulate\nhis purchase of carpeting and paper by space of three dimensions, without\nregard to possible speculations as to quaternions.\n\nPerhaps the principle of polarity may assist us in understanding that\nboth theories may be true; or rather that matter and spirit, necessity\nand free-will, may be opposite poles of one fundamental truth which is\nbeyond our comprehension. We cannot shake off this principle of polarity,\nand arrive at any knowledge, or even conception, of the absolute truth\nin regard to the atoms, energies, and natural laws, which make up the\nuniverse of matter and of all the ordinary and material functions of\nlife; why should we expect to do so in the higher manifestations of the\nsame life, which have been arrived at in the later stages of one unbroken\ncourse of evolution from monad to man?\n\nThis, at any rate, is the theory which best satisfies my own mind and\nenables me to reduce my own individual chaos into some sort of a cosmos.\nI draw from it the following conclusions:\u2014\n\nFor all practical purposes assume that \u2018right is right,\u2019 and that the\nmoral instincts, however they have been formed, are imperative laws.\nAssume also that\n\n    Man is man and master of his fate,\n\nand that we have, to a great extent, the power of deciding what to do and\nwhat not to do. But in doing so, keep the mind open to all conclusions\nof science, and admit freely that these assumptions are indissolubly\nconnected with natural laws and with material organs, and that man\nis to a very great extent dependent on his environment and his place\nin evolution, both for his moral code and for the force of will and\nconscience which enable him to conform to it. Learn therefore the lesson\nof a large toleration and of charity in thought and deed, towards those\nwho, from inherited constitution or unfortunate conditions of education\nand outward circumstances, fall under the sway of the principle of evil,\nand lead bad, useless, and unlovely lives. Had you and I, reader, been in\ntheir place, should we have done better?\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nZOROASTRIANISM.\n\n    Zoroaster an historical person\u2014The Parsees\u2014Iranian branch\n    of Aryan family\u2014Zoroaster a religious reformer\u2014Scene at\n    Balkh\u2014Conversion of Gushtasp\u2014Doctrines of the \u2018excellent\n    religion\u2019\u2014Monotheism\u2014Polarity\u2014Dr. Haug\u2019s description\u2014Ormuzd and\n    Ahriman\u2014Anquetil du Perron\u2014Approximation to modern thought\u2014Absence\n    of miracles\u2014Code of morals\u2014Its comprehensiveness\u2014And\n    liberality\u2014Special rites\u2014Fire-worship\u2014Disposal of dead\u2014Practical\n    results\u2014The Parsees of Bombay\u2014Their probity, enterprise,\n    respect for women\u2014Zeal for education\u2014Philanthropy and public\n    spirit\u2014Statistics\u2014Death and birth rates.\n\n\nZoroastrianism is commonly supposed to derive its name from its founder\nZoroaster, a Bactrian sage or prophet, who lived in the reign of King\nGushtasp the First. Zoroaster\u2019s name has come down to us from antiquity\nin much the same relation to this form of religion as that of Moses\nto Judaism, or of Sakya-Mouni to Buddhism. As in those cases, certain\nlearned commentators have endeavoured to show that the alleged founder\nwas purely mythical and had no real historical existence, basing their\nargument mainly on the fact that a number of supernatural attributes,\nand embodiments of metaphysical and theological ideas, became attached\nto the name, just as a whole cycle of solar myths became associated\nwith the name of Hercules. But this seems to be carrying scepticism too\nfar. Experience shows that religions have generally originated in the\ncrystallisation of ideas floating in solution at certain periods of the\nevolution of societies, about the nucleus of some powerful personality.\nNearly all the great religions of the world, such as Buddhism,\nConfucianism, Christianity, and Mahometanism, clearly had historical\nfounders, and it would be hypercritical to deny that such a man as Jesus\nof Nazareth really lived because many of his sayings and doings may be\ntraced to applications, more or less erroneous, of ancient prophecies,\nor because his human nature became transfigured into the Logos and other\nmetaphysical conceptions of the Alexandrian philosophy.\n\nIn the case of Zoroaster, the argument for his historical existence\nseems even stronger, for his name is connected with historical reigns\nand places, and his genuine early history contains nothing supernatural\nor improbable. He is represented as simply a deep thinker and powerful\npreacher, like Luther, who gave new form and expression to the vague\nreligious and philosophical ideas of his age and nation, reformed\nits superstitions and abuses, and converted the leading minds of his\nday, including the monarch, by the earnestness and eloquence of his\ndiscourses. At any rate, for my purpose I shall assume his personality,\nfor my object is not to write a critical essay on the origin and\ndevelopment of the Zoroastrian religion, but to show that in its\nfundamental ideas and essential spirit it approximates wonderfully to\nthose of the most advanced modern thought, and gives the outline of a\ncreed which goes further than any other to meet the practical wants\nof the present day, and to reconcile the conflict between faith and\nscience. This will be most clearly and vividly shown by assuming the\ncommonly accepted historical existence of Zoroaster to be true, and\nby confining myself to the broad, leading principles of his religion,\nwithout dwelling on its varying phases, or on the mythical legends and\nritualistic observances which, as in the case of all other old religions,\nhave crystallised about the primitive idea and the primitive founder.\n\nZara-thustra, or, as he is commonly called, Zoroaster, and the religion\nwhich goes by his name, are known to us mainly from the sacred books\nwhich have been preserved by the modern Parsees. The Parsees, a small\nremnant of the Persians who under Cyrus founded one of the mightiest\nempires of the ancient world, flying from their native country to escape\nfrom persecution after the Mahometan conquest, formed a colony in India,\nand are now settled at Bombay. They form a small but highly intelligent\ncommunity, who have preserved their ancient religion, and, fortunately,\nsome considerable fragments of their sacred scriptures. The oldest of\nthese are written in the Gata dialect of the Avesta or Zend language,\nwhich is contemporary with Sanskrit, and bears much the same relation to\nit as Latin does to Greek. The primitive Aryan family at some very remote\nperiod became divided into two branches, and radiated from their Central\nAsian home in two directions. The Hindoo branch migrated to the south\ninto the Punjaub and Hindostan; the Iranian westwards, into Bactria and\nPersia; while other successive waves of Aryan migration in prehistoric\ntimes rolled still further westwards over Europe, obliterating all but a\nfew traces of the aboriginal population.\n\nThe period of this separation of the Iranian and Hindoo races must be\nvery remote, for the Rig-Veda is probably at least 4,000 years old, and\nthe divergence between its form of Sanskrit and the Gata dialect of the\nZend is already as great as that between two kindred European languages\nsuch as Greek and Latin. The divergence of religious ideas is also\nevidently of very early date. In the Hindoo, and all other races of the\nprimitive Aryan stock, the word used for gods and good spirits is taken\nfrom the root \u2018div,\u2019 to shine. Thus, Daeva in Sanskrit, Zeus and Theos in\nGreek, Deus in Latin, Tius in German, Diews in Lutheranism, Dia in Irish,\nDew in Kymric, all mean the bright or shining one represented by the\nvault of heaven. But in Iranian the word has an opposite sense, and the\n\u2018deevs\u2019 correspond to our \u2018devils.\u2019\n\nThe primitive Aryan religions were evidently all derived from a\ncontemplation of the powers and phenomena of nature. The sky, with its\nflood of light and vault of ethereal blue, was considered to be the\nhighest manifestation of a Supreme Power; while the sun and moon, the\nstars and planets, the winds and clouds, the earth and waters, were\npersonified, either as symbols of the Deity or as subordinate gods.\nThe original simple faith was thus apt to degenerate into a system of\npolytheism, and, as the gods came to be represented by visible forms,\ninto idolatry.\n\nZoroaster appears to us, like Mahomet at a later age and among a ruder\npeople, as a prophet or reformer who abolished these abuses and restored\nthe ancient faith in a loftier and more intellectual form, adapted to the\nuse of an advanced and civilised society. The records of his life and\nteaching have fortunately been preserved in so authentic a form, that\ndistant as he is from us we can form a singularly accurate idea of who he\nwas and what he taught.\n\nSome 3,200 years ago a sight might have been seen in the ancient city of\nBalkh\u2014the famous capital of Bactria, the \u2018Mother of Cities\u2019\u2014very like\nthat witnessed some fourteen centuries later at our own Canterbury.\nThe king and his chief nobles and courtiers were assembled to hear the\ndiscourse of a preacher who proposed to teach them a better religion.\nGushtasp listened to Zoroaster, as Ethelbert listened to Augustine, and\nin each case reason and eloquence carried conviction, and the nation\nbecame converts to the new doctrine.\n\nThis conversion was effected without miracles, for it is expressly stated\nin the celebrated speech of the prophet, preserved in the 30th chapter of\nthe Yasna, that he relied solely on persuasion and argument. Ferdousi,\nthe Persian Homer, thus describes the first interview between Zoroaster\nand Gushtasp: \u2018Learn,\u2019 he said, \u2018the rites and doctrines of the religion\nof excellence. For without religion there cannot be any worth in a king.\nWhen the mighty monarch heard him speak of the excellent religion, he\naccepted from him the excellent rites and doctrines.\u2019\n\nThe doctrines of this \u2018excellent religion\u2019 are extremely simple. The\nleading idea is that of monotheism, but the one God has far fewer\nanthropomorphic attributes, and is relegated much farther back into the\nvague and infinite, than the god of any other monotheistic religion.\nAhura-Mazda, of which the more familiar appellation Ormuzd is an\nabbreviation, means the \u2018All-knowing Lord;\u2019 he is said sometimes to\ndwell in the infinite luminous space, and sometimes to be identical with\nit. He is, in fact, not unlike the inscrutable First Cause, whom we may\nregard with awe and reverence, with love and hope, but whom we cannot\npretend to define or to understand. But the radical difference between\nZoroastrianism and other religions is that it does not conceive of this\none God as an omnipotent Creator, who might make the universe as he\nchose, and therefore was directly responsible for all the evil in it; but\nas a Being acting by certain fixed laws, one of which was, for reasons\ntotally inscrutable to us, that existence implied polarity, and therefore\nthat there could be no good without corresponding evil.\n\nDr. Haug, who is the greatest authority on all questions connected with\nthe Zend scriptures, says: \u2018Having arrived at the grand idea of the unity\nand indivisibility of the Supreme Being, Zoroaster undertook to solve\nthe great problem which has engaged the attention of so many wise men\nof antiquity and even in modern times, viz. how are the imperfections\ndiscernible in the world, the various kind of evils, wickedness, and\nbaseness, compatible with the goodness, holiness, and justness of God?\nThis great thinker of remote antiquity solved this difficult question\nphilosophically, by the supposition of two prim\u00e6val causes, which, though\ndifferent, were united, and produced the world of material things as\nwell as that of spirit. These two prim\u00e6val principles are the two moving\ncauses in the universe, united from the beginning, and therefore called\ntwins. They are present everywhere\u2014in the Ahura Mazda, or Supreme Deity,\nas well as in man.\u2019\n\nThey are called in the Vendidad Spento Mainyush, or the \u2018beneficent\nspirit,\u2019 and Angro Mainyush, or the \u2018hurtful spirit.\u2019 The latter is\ngenerally known as Ahriman, the Prince of Darkness; and the former as\nOrmuzd, is identified with Ahura Mazda, the good God, though, strictly\nspeaking, Ahura Mazda is the great unknown First Cause, who comprehends\nwithin himself both principles as a necessary law of existence, and in\nwhom believers may hope that evil and good will ultimately be reconciled.\n\nAnquetil du Perron, the first translator of the Zendavesta, in his\n\u2018Critical View of the Theological and Ceremonial System of Zar-thurst,\u2019\nthus sums up the Parsee creed: \u2018The first point in the theological\nsystem of Zoroaster is to recognise and adore the Master of all that is\ngood, the Principle of all righteousness, Ormuzd, according to the form\nof worship prescribed by him, and with purity of thought, of word, and\nof action, a purity which is marked and preserved by purity of body.\nNext, to have a respect, accompanied by gratitude, for the intelligence\nto which Ormuzd has committed the care of nature (i.e. to the laws of\nnature), to take in our actions their attributes for models, to copy\nin our conduct the harmony which reigns in the different parts of the\nuniverse, and generally to honour Ormuzd in all that he has produced.\nThe second part of their religion consists in detesting the author of\nall evil, moral and physical, Ahriman\u2014his productions, and his works;\nand to contribute, as far as in us lies, to exalt the glory of Ormuzd by\nenfeebling the tyranny which the Evil Principle exercises over the world.\u2019\n\nIt is evident that this simple and sublime religion is one to which,\nby whatever name we may call it, the best modern thought is fast\napproximating. Men of science like Huxley, philosophers like Herbert\nSpencer, poets like Tennyson, might all subscribe to it; and even\nenlightened Christian divines, like Dr. Temple, are not very far from\nit when they admit the idea of a Creator behind the atoms and energies,\nwhose original impress, given in the form of laws of nature, was so\nperfect as to require no secondary interference. Admit that Christ is the\nbest personification of the Spenta Mainyush, or good principle in the\ninscrutable Divine polarity of existence, and a man may be at the same\ntime a Christian and a Zoroastrian.\n\nThe religion of Zoroaster has, however, this great advantage in the\nexisting conditions of modern thought, that it is not dragged down by\nsuch a dead weight of traditional dogmas and miracles as still hangs upon\nthe skirts of Christianity. Its dogmas are comprised in the statement\nthat there is one supreme, unknown, First Cause, who manifests himself in\nthe universe under fixed laws which involve the principle of polarity.\nThis is hardly so much a dogma as a statement of fact, or of the ultimate\nand absolute truth at which it is possible for human faculty to arrive.\nNo progress of science or philosophy conflicts with it, but rather they\nconfirm it, by showing more and more clearly with every discovery that\nthis is in very fact and deed the literal truth. Religion, or the feeling\nof reverence and love for the Great Unknown which lies beyond the sphere\nof human sense and reason, shines more brightly through this pure medium\nthan through the fogs of misty metaphysics; and we can worship God in\nspirit and in truth without puzzling our brains as to the precise nature\nof the Logos, or exercising them on the insoluble problem how one can be\nequal to three, and at the same time three equal to one.\n\nAs regards miracles, which are another millstone about the neck of\nCatholic Christianity, the religion of Zoroaster is entirely free from\nthem. There are, it is true, a few miraculous myths about him in some\nof the later writings in the Pehlvi language, as of his conception\nby his mother drinking a cup of the sacred Homa, but these are of no\nauthority and form no part of the religion. On the contrary, the original\nscriptures which profess to record his exact words and precepts disclaim\nall pretension to divine nature or miraculous power, and base the\nclaims of the \u2018excellent religion\u2019 purely on reason. This is an immense\nadvantage in the \u2018struggle for life,\u2019 when every day is making it more\nimpossible for educated men to believe that real miracles ever actually\noccurred, and when the evidence on which they were accepted is crumbling\nto pieces under the light of critical enquiry. The Parsee has no reason\nto tremble for his faith if a Galileo invents the telescope or a Newton\ndiscovers the law of gravity. He has no occasion to argue for Noah\u2019s\ndeluge, or for the order of Creation described in Genesis. Nay even, he\nmay remain undisturbed by that latest and most fatal discovery that man\nhas existed on the earth for untold ages, and, instead of falling from a\nhigh estate, has risen continuously by slow and painful progress from the\nrudest origins. How many orthodox Christians can say the same, or deny\nthat their faith in their sacred books and venerable traditions has been\nrudely shaken?\n\nThe code of morality enjoined by the Zoroastrian religion is as pure as\nits theory is perfect. Dr. Haug enumerates the following sins denounced\nby its code, and considered as such by the present Parsees: Murder,\ninfanticide, poisoning, adultery on the part of men as well as women,\nsorcery, sodomy, cheating in weight and measure, breach of promise\nwhether made to a Zoroastrian or non-Zoroastrian, telling lies and\ndeceiving, false covenants, slander and calumny, perjury, dishonest\nappropriation of wealth, taking bribes, keeping back the wages of\nlabourers, misappropriation of religious property, removal of a boundary\nstone, turning people out of their property, maladministration and\ndefrauding, apostasy, heresy, rebellion. These are positive injunctions.\nThe following are condemnable from a religious point of view: Abandoning\nthe husband; not acknowledging one\u2019s children on the part of the father;\ncruelty towards subjects on the part of a ruler; avarice, laziness,\nilliberality and egotism, envy. In addition there are a number of special\nprecepts adapted to the peculiar rites of the Zoroastrian religion\nwhich aim principally at the enforcement of sanitary rules, kindness to\nanimals, hospitality to strangers and travellers, respect to superiors,\nand help to the poor and needy.\n\nIt is evident that this is the most complete and comprehensive code of\nmorals to be found in any system of religion. It comprises all that\nis best in the codes of Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity, with a\nmuch more ample definition of many vices and virtues which, even in\nthe Christian religion, are left to be drawn as inferences rather than\ninculcated as precepts. Thus, laziness, cheating, selfishness, and envy\nare distinctly defined as crimes, and their opposites as virtues, and\nnot merely left to be inferred from the general maxims of \u2018loving your\nneighbour as yourself,\u2019 and \u2018doing unto others as you would be done by.\u2019\nThe comprehensiveness and liberal spirit of the code is also remarkable,\nfor we are repeatedly told that these rules of morality apply to\nnon-Zoroastrians as well as to Zoroastrians. The application of religious\nprecepts to practical life is another distinguishing feature. Thus\nkindness to animals is specially enjoined, and it is considered a sin to\nill-treat animals of the good creation, such as cattle, sheep, horses,\nor dogs, by starving, beating, or unnecessarily killing them. With true\npractical wisdom, however, the \u2018falsehood of extremes\u2019 is avoided, and\nthis precept is not, as in the case of Brahminism and Buddhism, carried\nso far as to prohibit altogether the taking of animal life, which is\nexpressly sanctioned when necessary. This sober practical wisdom, or what\nMatthew Arnold calls \u2018sweet reasonableness,\u2019 is a very characteristic\nfeature of Zoroaster\u2019s religion, and very remarkable as having been\ntaught at so early a period in the history of civilisation.\n\nAnother precept, which might well have been made by an English board of\nhealth in the nineteenth century, is not to pollute water by throwing\nimpure matter into it.\n\nThe only special Parsee rites which would be unsuited for modern European\nsociety, are the worship of the sacred fire and the disposal of the\ndead. It is true that the former is distinctly understood to be merely\na symbol of the Deity, and used exactly as water is in baptism, or as\nthe ascending flame of candles and smoke from swinging incense are in\nthe Catholic ritual, to bring more vividly before the minds of the\nworshippers the idea of the spirit soaring upwards towards heaven. Still,\nin modern society fire is too well understood as merely a particular form\nof chemical combination, and is too familiar as the strong slave and\nhousehold drudge of man, to acquire a leading place in a religious ritual\nwhere it has not been hallowed by the usage of a long line of ancestors\nand the traditions of a venerable antiquity. All that can be said is,\nthat if religious rites and ceremonies are to be maintained in an age\nwhen science has become the prevailing mode of thought, appropriate\nsymbolism, especially that of music, must more and more take the place of\nappeals to the intellect on metaphysical questions, and of repetitions of\ntraditional formul\u00e6 which have lost all living significance.\n\nAnother Parsee rite, which is even less adapted for general usage, is\nthat of disposing of the dead on towers of silence, where the body\nmoulders away or is devoured by birds of prey. It originates in a\npoetical motive of not defiling the pure elements, fire, earth, or\nwater, by corruption; but it is obviously unsuited for the conditions of\ncivilisation and climate which prevail in crowded cities under a humid\nsky.\n\nThere is little prospect therefore of any general conversion to the sect\nof Zoroastrians; but what seems probable is the gradual transformation of\nexisting modes both of religious and secular thought into something which\nis, in principle, very closely akin to the \u2018excellent religion\u2019 taught by\nthe Bactrian prophet.\n\nThe miraculous theory of the universe being virtually dead, the only\ntheory that can reconcile facts with feelings, and the ineradicable\nemotions and aspirations of the human mind with the incontrovertible\nconclusions of science, is that of a remote and more or less unknown\nand incomprehensible First Cause, which has given the original atoms\nand energies so perfect an impress from the first, that all phenomena\nare evolved from them by fixed laws, one of the principal of such laws\nbeing that of polarity, which develops the ever-increasing complexities\nand contrasts of the inorganic and organic worlds, of moralities,\nphilosophies, religions, and human societies. True religion consists in\na recognition of this truth, a feeling of reverence in presence of the\nunknown, and, above all, a feeling of love and admiration for the good\nprinciple in whatever form it is manifested, in the beauties of nature\nand of art, in moral and physical purity and perfection, and all else\nthat falls within the domain of the Prince of Light, in whose service,\nwhether we conceive of him as an abstract principle, or accept some\npersonification of him as a living figure, we enlist as loyal soldiers,\ndoing our best to fight in his ranks against the powers of evil.\n\nThe application of the all-pervading principle of polarity is exemplified\nin the realm of art. The glorious Greek drama turned mainly on the\nconflict between resistless fate and heroic free-will, and is typified\nin its highest form by \u00c6schylus, when he depicts Prometheus chained to\nthe rock hurling defiance at the tyrant of heaven. Our own Milton, in\nlike manner, gives us the spectacle of the fallen archangel opposing\nhis indomitable will and fertile resources to the extremity of adverse\ncircumstance and to Almighty power.\n\nThe greatest of modern dramas, Goethe\u2019s \u2018Faust,\u2019 turns so entirely on\nthe opposition between the human soul striving after the infinite, and\nthe spirit _der verneint_, who combats ideal aspirations with a cynical\nsneer, that it might well be called a Zoroastrian drama. It is a picture\nof the conflict between the two opposite principles of good and evil, of\naffirmation and negation, of the beautiful and the ugly, personified in\nFaust and Mephistopheles, and it is painted on a background of the great\nmysterious unknown. \u2018Wer darf ihn nennen?\u2019\n\n    Who dares to name Him,\n    Who to say of Him, \u2018I believe\u2019?\n    Who is there ever with a heart to dare\n    To utter, \u2018I believe Him not\u2019?\n\nSo in poetry, Tennyson, the poet of modern thought, touches the deepest\nchords when he asks\u2014\n\n    Are God and Nature, then, at strife?\n\nand paints in the sharpest contrast on the background of the unknown, the\nconflict between the faith that\n\n                God is love indeed,\n    And love creation\u2019s final law,\n\nand the harsh realities of nature, which\n\n                      Red in tooth and claw\n    With ravine shrieks against the creed;\n\nor again in his later work, \u2018The Ancient Sage,\u2019 he says\u2014\n\n    Thou canst not prove the Nameless, O my son!\n    For nothing worthy proving can be proven,\n    Nor yet disproven.\n\nIn like manner in the works of art which embrace a wider range, and hold\nup the mirror to human nature, as in Shakespeare\u2019s plays, and the novels\nof Walter Scott and other great authors, the interest arises mainly from\nthe polarity of the various characters. We care little for the goody-good\nheroes or vulgar villains, but we recognise a touch of that nature which\nmakes all the world akin in a Macbeth drawn by metaphysical suggestion\nto wade through a sea of blood; in Othello\u2019s noble nature caught like a\nlion in the toils by the net of circumstances woven by a wily hunter; in\nFalstaff, a rogue, a liar, and a glutton, yet made almost likeable by his\nready wit, imperturbable good-humour, and fertile resources. Shakespeare\nis, in fact, the greatest of artists, because he is the most multipolar.\nHe has poles of sympathy in him which, as the poles of carbon attract\nso many elements and form so many combinations, enable him to take into\nhis own nature, assimilate, and reproduce every varied shade of character\nfrom a Miranda to a Caliban, from an Imogen to a Lady Macbeth, from a\nFalstaff to an Othello. Sir Walter Scott and all our great novelists\nhave the same faculty, though in a less degree, and are great in exact\nproportion as they have many poles in their nature, and as those are\npoles of powerful polarity. The characters and incidents which affect\nus strongly and dwell in the memory are those in which the clash and\nconflict of opposites are most vividly represented. We feel infinite pity\nfor a Maggie Tulliver dashing her young life, like a prisoned wild bird,\nagainst the bars of trivial and prosaic environment which hem her in; or\nfor a Colonel Newcome opposing the patience of a gentle nature to the\nbuffets of such a fate as meets us in the everyday world of modern life,\nthe failure of his bank and the naggings of the Old Campaigner. On a\nhigher level of art we sympathise with a Lancelot and a Guinevere because\nthey are types of what we may meet in many a London drawing-room, noble\nnatures drawn by some fatal fairy fascination into ignoble acts, but\nstill retaining something of their original nobility, and while\n\n    Their honour rooted in dishonour stands,\n\nappearing to ordinary mortals little less than \u2018archangels ruined.\u2019 Or\neven if we descend to the lowest level of the penny dreadful or suburban\ndrama, we find that the polarity between vice and virtue, however\ncoarsely delineated, is that which mostly fascinates the uncultured mind.\n\nThe affinity between Zoroastrianism and art is easily explained when\nwe consider that in one respect it has a manifest advantage over most\nChristian forms of religion. Christianity in its early origins received\na taint of Oriental asceticism which it never shook off, and which in\nthe declining centuries of the Roman empire, and in the barbarism and\nsuperstition of the Middle Ages, developed into what may be almost called\na devil-worship of the ugly and repulsive. The antithesis between the\nflesh and the spirit was carried to such an extreme and false extent,\nthat everything that was pleasant and beautiful came to be regarded as\nsinful, and the odour of sanctity was an odour which the passer-by would\ndo well to keep on the windward side of. This leaven of asceticism is\nthe rock upon which Puritanism, monasticism, and many of the highest\nforms of Christian life have invariably split. It is contrary to human\nnature, and directly opposed to the spirit of the life and doctrines of\nthe Founder of the religion. Jesus, who was \u2018a Jew living among Jews\nand speaking to Jews,\u2019 adopted the true Jewish point of view of making\nreligion amiable and attractive, and denouncing, as all the best Jewish\ndoctors of the Talmud did, the pharisaical strictness which insisted on\nritualistic observances and arbitrary restrictions. In no passages of\nhis life does the \u2018sweet reasonableness\u2019 of his character appear more\nconspicuous than where we find him strolling through the fields with his\ndisciples and plucking ears of corn on the Sabbath, and replying to the\nformalists who were scandalised, \u2018The Sabbath was made for man, not man\nfor the Sabbath.\u2019 The ascetic bias subsequently introduced may have been\na necessary element in counteracting the corruption of Rome; but the\npendulum in its reaction swung much too far, and when organised in the\ncelibacy of the clergy and monastic institutions asceticism became the\nsource of great evils. Even at a late period we can see in the reaction\nof the reign of Charles II. how antagonistic the puritanical creed,\neven of men like Cromwell and Milton, proved to the healthy natural\ninstinct of the great mass of the English nation. And at the present day\nit remains one of the main causes of the indifference or hostility to\nreligion which is so widely spreading among the mass of the population.\nChildren are brought up to consider Sunday as a day of penance, and\nchurch-going as a disagreeable necessity; while grown-up men, especially\nthose of the working classes, resent being told that a walk in the\ncountry, a cricket-match, or a visit to a library or museum on their only\nholiday, is sinful.\n\nIn view of the approximation between the Zoroastrian religion and\nthe forms of modern thought it is interesting to note how the former\nworks among its adherents in actual practice. For, after all, the\npractical side of a religion is more important than its speculative\nor philosophical theories. Thus, for instance, the Quakers have a\nfaith which is about the most reasonable of any of the numerous sects\nof Christianity and nearest to the spirit of its Founder, and yet\nQuakerism remains a narrow sect which is far from being victorious in the\n\u2018struggle for life,\u2019 Mahometanism, again, while dying out among civilised\nnations, shows itself superior to Christianity in the work of raising\nthe barbarous, fetish-worshipping negroes of Africa to a higher level.\nAnd Mormonism, based on the most obvious imposture and absurdity, is\nthe only new religion which, in recent times, has taken root and to a\ncertain extent flourished.\n\nTried by this test, Zoroastrianism has made good its claim to be called\nthe \u2018excellent religion.\u2019 Its followers, the limited community of Parsees\nin India, are honourably distinguished for probity, intelligence,\nenterprise, public spirit, benevolence, tolerance, and other good\nqualities. By virtue of these qualities they have raised themselves\nto a prominent position in our Indian empire, and take a leading part\nin its commerce and industrial enterprise. The chief shipbuilder at\nBombay, the first great native railway contractor, the founder of cotton\nfactories, are all Parsees, and they are found as merchants, traders, and\nshopkeepers in all the chief towns of British India, and distant places\nsuch as Aden and Zanzibar. Their commercial probity is proverbial, and,\nas in England, they have few written agreements, the word of a Parsee,\nlike that of an Englishman, being considered as good as his bond. Their\nhigh character and practical aptitude for business are attested by the\nfact that the first mayor, or chairman of the Corporation of Bombay, was\na Parsee who was elected by the unanimous vote both of Europeans and\nnatives.\n\nThe position of women affords perhaps the best test of the real\ncivilisation and intrinsic worth of any community. Where men consider\nwomen as inferior creatures it is a sure proof that they themselves are\nso. They are totally wanting in that delicacy and refinement of nature\nwhich distinguishes the true gentleman from the snob or the savage, and\nare coarse, vulgar brutes, however disguised under a veneer of outward\npolish. On the other hand, respect for women implies self-respect,\nnobility of nature, capability of rising to high ideals above the sordid\nlevel of animal appetite and the selfish supremacy of brute force.\n\nThe Parsees in this respect stand high, far higher than any other\nOriental people, and on a level with the best European civilisation.\nThe equality of the sexes is distinctly laid down in the Zoroastrian\nscriptures. Women are always mentioned as a necessary part of the\nreligious community. They have the same religious rites as the men. The\nspirits of deceased women are invoked as well as those of men. Long\ncontact with the other races of India, and the necessity for some outward\nconformity to the practices of Hindoo and Mahometan rulers, did something\nto impair the position of females as regards public appearances, though\nthe Parsee wife and mother always remained a principal figure in the\nParsee household; and latterly, under the security of English rule,\nParsee ladies may be seen everywhere in public, enjoying just as much\nliberty as the ladies of Europe or America. Nor are they at all behind\ntheir Western sisters in education, accomplishments, and, it may be\nadded, in daintiness of fashionable attire. In fact, an eager desire for\neducation has become a prominent feature among all classes of the Parsee\ncommunity, and they are quite on a par with the Scotch, German, and other\nEuropean races in their efforts to establish schools, and in the numbers\nwho attend, and especially of those who obtain distinguished places in\nthe higher schools and colleges, such as the Elphinstone Institute and\nthe Bombay University. Female education is also actively promoted, and no\nprejudices stand in the way of attendance at the numerous girls\u2019 schools\nwhich have been established, or even of studying in medical colleges,\nwhere Parsee women attend lectures on all branches of medical science\nalong with male students. Those who know the position of inferiority and\nseclusion in which women are kept among all other Oriental nations can\nbest appreciate the largeness and liberality of spirit of a religion\nwhich, in spite of all surrounding influences, has rendered such a thing\npossible in such a country as India.\n\nAnother prominent trait of the Parsee character is that of philanthropy\nand public spirit. In proportion to their numbers and means they raise\nmore money for charitable objects than any other religious sect. And they\nraise it in a way which does the greatest credit to their tolerance and\nliberality. For instance, the Parsees were the principal subscribers to\na fund raised in Bombay in aid of the \u2018Scottish Corporation,\u2019 and quite\nrecently a Parsee gentleman gave 16,000_l._ towards the establishment of\na female hospital under the care of lady doctors, although the benefit of\nsuch an institution would be confined principally to Mahometan and Hindoo\nwomen, Parsee women having no prejudice against employing male doctors.\n\nThe public spirit shown by acts like this is the trait by which the\nParsee community is most honourably distinguished, and in respect of\nwhich it must be candidly confessed it far surpasses not only other\nOriental races, but most European nations, including our own. Whatever\nthe reason may be, the fact is certain that in England, while a great\ndeal of money is spent in charity, lamentably little is spent from the\nenormous surplus wealth of the country on what may be called public\nobjects. There is neither religious influence nor social opinion brought\nto bear on the numerous class who have incomes far beyond any possible\nwant, to teach them that it should be both a pleasure and a pride to\nassociate their names with some act of noble liberality. A better spirit\nwe may hope is springing up, and there have been occasional instances\nof large sums applied to public purposes, such as parks and colleges,\nby private individuals, principally of the trading and manufacturing\nclasses, such as the Salts, Crossleys, Baxters, and Holloways; but on the\nwhole the amount contributed is miserably small. It is probably part of\nthe price we pay for aristocratic institutions that those who inherit or\naccumulate great fortunes consider it their primary object to perpetuate\nor to found great families. Be this as it may, a totally different spirit\nprevails among the Parsees of Bombay, where it has been truly stated\nthat hardly a year passes without some wealthy Parsee coming forward\nto perform a work of public generosity. The instance of Sir Jamsedjee\nJijibhoy, who attained a European reputation for his noble benevolence,\nis only one conspicuous instance out of a thousand of this \u2018public\nspirit\u2019 which has become almost an instinctive element in Parsee society.\n\nHow far the large and liberal religion may be the cause of the large\nand liberal practice, it is impossible to say. Other influences have\ndoubtless been at work. The Parsees are a commercial people, and commerce\nis always more liberal with its money than land. They are the descendants\nof a persecuted race, and as a rule it is better to be persecuted than to\npersecute. Still, after making all allowances, it remains that the tree\ncannot be bad which bears such fruits; the religion must be a good one\nwhich produces good men and women and good deeds.\n\nStatistical facts testify quite as strongly to the high standard of the\nParsee race, and the practical results which follow from the observance\nof the Zoroastrian ritual. A small death-rate and a large proportion\nof children prove the vigorous vitality of a race. The Parsees have\nthe lowest death-rate of any of the many races who inhabit Bombay. The\naverage for the two years 1881 and 1882 per thousand was for Hindoos\n26\u00b711; for Mussulmans 30\u00b746; for Europeans 20\u00b718; for Parsees 19\u00b726.\nThe percentage of children under two years old to women between fifteen\nand forty-five was 30\u00b727 for Parsees, as against Hindoos 22\u00b724, and\nMussulmans 24\u00b79, showing incontestably greater vitality and greater care\nfor human life.\n\nOf 6,618 male and 2,966 female mendicants in the city of Bombay, only\nfive male and one female were Parsees.\n\nThese figures speak for themselves. It is evident that a religion in\nwhich such results are possible cannot be unfavourable to the development\nof the \u2018mens sana in corpore sano;\u2019 and that, although we may not turn\nZoroastrians, we may envy some of the results of a creed which inculcates\nworship of the good, the pure, and the beautiful in the concerns of daily\nlife, as well as in the abstract regions of theological and philosophical\nspeculation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nFORMS OF WORSHIP.\n\n    Byron\u2019s lines\u2014Carnegie\u2019s description\u2014Parsee nature-worship\u2014English\n    Sunday\u2014The sermon\u2014Appeals to reason misplaced\u2014Music better\n    than words\u2014The Mass\u2014Zoroastrianism brings religion into daily\n    life\u2014Sanitation\u2014Zoroastrian prayer\u2014Religion of the future\u2014Sermons\n    in stones and good in everything.\n\n\n      Not vainly did the early Persian make\n      His altar the high places and the peak\n      Of earth-o\u2019ergazing mountains, and thus take\n      A fit and unwall\u2019d temple, where to seek\n      The spirit, in whose honour shrines are weak,\n      Uprear\u2019d of human hands. Come, and compare\n      Columns and idol-dwellings, Goth or Greek,\n      With nature\u2019s realms of worship, earth and air,\n    Nor fix on fond abodes to circumscribe thy prayer!\n\n                                                _Childe Harold_, iii. 91.\n\nA shrewd Scotch-American ironmaster\u2014Andrew Carnegie\u2014in an interesting\nand instructive record of experiences during a voyage round the world,\ngives the following description of the worship of the modern Parsees, as\nactually witnessed by him at Bombay:\u2014\n\n\u2018This evening we were surprised to see, as we strolled along the beach,\nmore Parsees than ever before, and more Parsee ladies richly dressed, all\nwending their way towards the sea. It was the first of the new moon, a\nperiod sacred to these worshippers of the elements; and here on the shore\nof the ocean, as the sun was sinking in the sea, and the slender silver\nthread of the crescent moon was faintly shining on the horizon, they\ncongregated to perform their religious rites.\n\n\u2018Fire was there in its grandest form, the setting sun, and water in the\nvast expanse of the Indian Ocean outstretched before them. The earth was\nunder their feet, and wafted across the sea the air came laden with the\nperfumes of \u201cAraby the blest.\u201d Surely no time or place could be more\nfitly chosen than this for lifting up the soul to the realms beyond\nsense. I could not but participate with these worshippers in what was so\ngrandly beautiful. There was no music save the solemn moan of the waves\nas they broke into foam on the beach. But where shall we find so mighty\nan organ, or so grand an anthem?\n\n\u2018How inexpressibly sublime the scene appeared to me, and how\ninsignificant and unworthy of the unknown seemed even our cathedrals\n\u201cmade with human hands,\u201d when compared with this looking up through\nnature unto nature\u2019s God! I stood and drank in the serene happiness which\nseemed to fill the air. I have seen many modes and forms of worship\u2014some\ndisgusting, others saddening, a few elevating when the organ pealed forth\nits tones, but all poor in comparison with this. Nor do I ever expect\nin all my life to witness a religious ceremony which will so powerfully\naffect me as that of the Parsees on the beach at Bombay.\u2019\n\nI say Amen with all my heart to Mr. Carnegie. Here is an ideal religious\nceremony combining all that is most true, most touching, and most\nsublime, in the attitude of man towards the Great Unknown. Compare it\nwith the routine of an ordinary English Sunday, and how poor and prosaic\ndoes the latter appear! There is nothing which seems to me to have fallen\nmore completely out of harmony with its existing environment than our\ntraditional form of church service. The sermon has been killed by the\npress and has become an anachronism. There was a time when sermons like\nthose of Latimer and John Knox were living realities; they dealt with all\nthe burning political and personal questions of the day, and to a great\nextent did the work now done by platform speeches and leading articles.\nIf there are national dangers to be denounced, national shortcomings to\nbe pointed out, iniquity in high places to be rebuked, we look to our\ndaily newspaper, and not to our weekly sermon. The sermon has in a great\nmajority of cases become a sort of schoolboy theme, in which traditional\nassumptions and conventional phrases are ground out, with as little soul\nor idea behind them as in the Thibetan praying-mill. In the course of a\nlong life I have gained innumerable ideas and experienced innumerable\ninfluences, from contact with the world, with fellow-men, and with books;\nbut although I have heard a good many sermons, I cannot honestly say that\nI ever got an idea or an influence from one of them which made me wiser\nor better, or different in any respect from what I should have been if I\nhad slept through them. And this from no fault of the preachers. I have\nheard many who gave me the impression that they were good men, and a\nfew who impressed me as being able and liberal-minded men\u2014nor do I know\nthat, under the conditions in which they are placed, I could have done\nany better myself. But they were dancing in fetters, and so tied down by\nconventionalities that it was simply impossible for them to depart from\nthe paths of a decorous routine.\n\nThe fact is that the whole point of view of our religious services,\nespecially in Protestant countries, has become a mistaken one. It is\nfar too much an appeal to the intellect and to abstract dogmas, and too\nlittle, one to the realities of actual life and to the vague emotions and\naspirations which constitute the proper field of religion. In the great\nreaction of the Reformation it was perhaps inevitable that an appeal\nshould be made to reason against the abuses of an infallible Church; and\nas long as the literal inspiration of the Bible and other theological\npremises were held to be undoubted axioms by the whole Christian world,\nthere might be a certain interest in hearing them repeated over and over\nagain in becoming language, and in listening to sermons which explained\nshortly conclusions which might be drawn from these admitted axioms. But\nthis is no longer the case. It is impossible to touch the merest fringe\nof the questions now raised by the intellectual side of religion in\ndiscourses of half an hour\u2019s length; even if the preacher were perfectly\nfree, and not hampered by the fear of scandalising simple, pious souls\nby plain language. Spoken words have to a great extent ceased to be\nthe appropriate vehicle for appealing either to religious reason or\nto religious emotion\u2014books for the former, music for the latter, are\ninfinitely more effective. Music especially seems made to be the language\nof religion. Not only its beauty and harmony, but its vagueness, and its\npower of exciting the imagination and stirring the feelings, without\nanything definite which has to be proved and can be contradicted, fit\nit to be the interpreter of those emotions and aspirations which fill\nthe human soul in presence of the universe and of the Great Unknown.\nDemonstrate, with St. Thomas Aquinas or Duns Scotus, how many angels can\nstand on the point of a needle, and I remain unaffected; but let me hear\nRossini\u2019s \u2018Cujus Animam,\u2019 or Mozart\u2019s \u2018Agnus Dei,\u2019 and I say, \u2018Thus the\nangels sing.\u2019\n\nIn this respect the Roman Catholic Church has retained a great advantage\nover reformed churches. Whatever we may think of its tenets and\nprinciples, its forms of worship are more impressive and more attractive.\nThe Mass, apart from all dogma and miracle, is a mysterious and beautiful\nreligious drama, in which appropriate symbolism, vocal and instrumental\nmusic, all the highest efforts of human art, are united to produce\nfeelings of joy and of devoutness. The vestment of the priest, his\ngestures and genuflexions, the Latin words chanted in stately recitative,\nthe flame of the candles pointing heavenwards, the burning incense\nslowly soaring upwards, the music of great masters, not like our dreary\nand monotonous psalmody, but in fullest harmony and richest melody\u2014all\ncombine to attune the mind to that state of feeling which is the soul of\nreligion.\n\nIn this respect, however, what I have called the Zoroastrian theory\nof religion affords great advantages. It connects religion directly\nwith all that is good and beautiful, not only in the higher realms of\nspeculation and of emotion, but in the ordinary affairs of daily life.\nTo feel the truth of what is true, the beauty of what is beautiful, is\nof itself a silent prayer or act of worship to the Spirit of Light; to\nmake an honest, earnest, effort to attain this feeling, is an offering\nor act of homage. Cleanliness of mind and body, order and propriety in\nconduct, civility in intercourse, and all the homely virtues of everyday\nlife, thus acquire a higher significance, and any wilful and persistent\ndisregard of them becomes an act of mutiny against the Power whom we have\nelected to serve. Such moral perversion becomes impossible as that which\nin the Middle Ages associated filth with holiness, and adduced as a title\nto canonisation that the saint had worn the same woollen shirt until it\nfell to pieces under the attacks of vermin. We laugh at this in more\nenlightened days, but we often imitate it by setting up false religious\nstandards, and thinking we can make men better by penning them up on\nSundays in the foul air and corrupting influences of densely peopled\ncities.\n\nThe identification of moral and physical evil, which is one of the most\nessential and peculiar tenets of the Zoroastrian creed, is fast becoming\na leading idea in modern civilisation. Our most earnest philanthropists\nand zealous workers in the fields of sin and misery in crowded cities are\ncoming, more and more every day, to the conviction that an improvement\nin the physical conditions of life is the first indispensable condition\nof moral and religious progress. More air, more light, better lodging,\nbetter food, more innocent and healthy recreation, are what are wanted\nto make any real impression on the masses who have either been born and\nbred in an evil environment, or have fallen out of the ranks and are\nthe waifs and stragglers left behind in the rapid progress and intense\ncompetition of modern society. Hence we see that the devoted individuals\nand charitable institutions who take the lead in works of practical\nbenevolence direct their attention more and more to the rescue of\nchildren from bad surroundings; to sending them to new and happier homes\nin the colonies, to country retreats for the sickly, and excursions for\nthe healthy; and to providing clubs and reading-rooms as substitutes for\nthe gin-palace and public-house. The latest development of this idea,\nthat of the \u2018People\u2019s Palace\u2019 in the East End of London, is a noble\noffering to the \u2018Spirit of Light,\u2019 by whatever name we choose to call\nhim, in opposition to the \u2018Spirit of Darkness.\u2019\n\nTo the Zoroastrian, prayer assumes the form of a recognition of all that\nis pure, sublime, and beautiful in the surrounding universe. He can never\nwant opportunities of paying homage to the Good Spirit and of looking\ninto the abysses of the unknown with reverence and wonder. The light of\nsetting suns, the dome of loving blue, the clouds in the might of the\ntempest or resting still as brooding doves, the mountains, the\n\n                                    Waste\n    And solitary places where we taste\n    The pleasure of believing what we see,\n    Is boundless, as we wish our souls to be;\n\nthe ocean lashed by storm, or where it\n\n    All down the sand\n    Lies breathing in its sleep,\n    Heard by the land\u2014\n\nthese are a Zoroastrian\u2019s prayers.\n\nAnd even if, \u2018in populous cities pent,\u2019 he is cut off from close\ncommunion with nature, opportunities are not wanting to him of letting\nhis soul soar aloft with purifying aspirations. A glimpse of the starry\nsky, even if seen from a London street, may bear in on him the awful yet\nlovely mystery of the Infinite. Good books, good music, true works of\nart, may all strengthen his love of the good and beautiful. A dense fog,\nor drizzling rain may obscure the outward view, but with the inner eye\nhe may stand listening to the lark or under the vernal sky, and while his\n\n    Heart looks down and up,\n      Serene, secure;\n    Warm as the crocus-cup,\n      As snowdrops pure,\n\nthank the Good Spirit that it has been given to man to write, and to\nhim to read, verses of such exquisite perfection as Shelley\u2019s \u2018Ode to a\nSkylark\u2019 and Tennyson\u2019s \u2018Early Spring.\u2019 Above all, where men congregate\nin masses, in the great centres of politics, of commerce, of literature,\nscience, and art, he can hear best\n\n    The still sad music of humanity,\n    Not harsh nor grating, but of ample power\n    To chasten and subdue,\n\nand associate himself with movements in which his little individual\neffort is exerted towards making the world a little better rather than a\nlittle worse than he found it.\n\nThis, rather than wrangling with his fellow-mortals about creeds and\nattempts to name the unnameable, believe the unbelievable, and define the\nundefineable, seems to me to be the religion of the future. Call it by\nwhat name you like, I quarrel with no one as long as he can find\n\n    Sermons in stones and good in everything.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nPRACTICAL POLARITIES.\n\n    Fable of the shield\u2014Progress and conservatism\u2014English and\n    French colonisation\u2014Law-abidingness\u2014Irish land question\u2014True\n    conservative legislation\u2014Ultra-conservatism\u2014Law and\n    education\u2014Patriotism\u2014Jingoism and parochialism\u2014True\n    statesmanship\u2014Free trade and protection\u2014Capital\n    and labour\u2014Egoism and altruism\u2014Socialism and\n    _laissez faire_\u2014Contracts\u2014Rights and duties of\n    landlords\u2014George\u2019s theory\u2014State interference\u2014Railways\u2014Post\n    Office\u2014Telegraphs\u2014National defence\u2014Concluding remarks.\n\n\nA well-known fable tells how in the olden time two knights were riding\nin opposite directions along a green road overarched by the trees of\nan ancient forest. It was a bright morning in early summer, with the\ngreen leaves freshly bursting in contrasted foliage; the sun had just\nrisen over the tops of the trees in clouds of golden and crimson glory;\ndewdrops were glittering like diamonds on every twig and blade of grass;\nand the joyous birds carolling their loudest song to greet the opening\nday.\n\nEverything was fresh and cheerful as of a new-born earth, and so were the\nspirits of the two youthful knights, who were pricking forth in search of\nadventures. He whose face was turned towards the West, where the rising\nsun had last set, wore a primrose scarf over his cuirass, and had on his\nshield a quaint device, which, on closer inspection, might be seen to be\na tombstone with the inscription,\n\n    \u2018I was well, would be better, and here I am.\u2019\n\nHe rode along musing on the heroic legends of the past, and wishing\nthat he had been a knight of Arthur\u2019s round table to ride out with the\nblameless king against invading heathen.\n\nThe second knight, whose face was turned towards the rising sun, bore an\nazure shield with a different device. On it was depicted the good Sir\nJames Douglass charging the serried Paynim army, and, as he charged,\nflinging before him into the hostile ranks the casket containing the\nheart of Robert Bruce, and shouting for battle-cry\u2014\n\n    Go thou aye forward, as was thy wont.\n\nAs he rode his fancy wrought the fairy web of a day-dream, in which he\nsaw himself delivering the fair princess Liberty from the fiery dragon\nPrejudice and the stolid giant Obstruction.\n\nThe knights met just where an ancient oak of mighty bulk stretched\noverhead a huge branch across the path, as some aged athlete might\nstretch out an arm rigid with gnarled and knotted muscles, to show\nyounger generations how Olympian laurels were won when Pollux or Hercules\nplied the cestus. From this branch a shield hung suspended.\n\n\u2018Good morrow, fair knight,\u2019 said he of the primrose scarf; \u2018prithee tell\nme if thou knowest what means this golden shield suspended here.\u2019\n\n\u2018I marvel at it myself, good Sir Knight,\u2019 responded the other; \u2018but you\nmistake in calling the shield golden; it is of silver.\u2019\n\n\u2018Your eyes must be of the dullest,\u2019 said the first knight, \u2018if you\nmistake gold for silver.\u2019\n\n\u2018Not so dull as yours,\u2019 retorted the other, \u2018if you mistake silver for\ngold.\u2019\n\nThe argument waxed hot, and, as usual in such cases, as tempers grew weak\nadjectives grew strong. Soon, like the old Homeric heroes when Greek met\nTrojan\n\n    Far on the ringing plains of windy Troy,\n\nwinged words of fire and fury darted from each mouth, and epithets were\nexchanged, of which \u2018stupid old Tory\u2019 and \u2018low, vulgar Radical\u2019 were\namong the least unparliamentary. At length the fatal words \u2018You lie\u2019\nescaped simultaneously from both, and on the instant spears were couched,\nsteeds spurred, and, red with rage, they encountered each other in full\ncareer. Such was the momentum that both men and horses rolled over, even\nas the Templar went down before the spear of Ivanhoe within the lists of\nAshby-de-la-Zouch. But, like the redoubted knight Brian de Bois-Guilbert,\neach sprang to his feet and drew his sword, eager to redeem the fortune\nof war in deadly combat. Like two surly boars with bristling backs and\nfoaming tusks quarrelling for the right of way in Indian jungle, or tawny\nlions in Numidian desert tearing one another to pieces for the smiles\nof a leonine Helen, the heroes clashed together, cutting, slashing,\nparrying, foyning, and traversing, until at length, bleeding and\nbreathless, they paused for a moment, leaning on their swords to recover\nsecond wind.\n\nJust then an aged hermit appeared on the scene, drawn thither by the\nsound of the combat.\n\n\u2018Pause, my sons,\u2019 he said, \u2018and tell me what is the cause of this furious\nencounter.\u2019\n\n\u2018Yonder false villain protests,\u2019 said the one, \u2018that the shield which\nhangs there is of gold.\u2019\n\n\u2018And that lying varlet persists that it is of silver,\u2019 said the other.\n\nThe hermit smiled, and said, \u2018Hold your hands, good sirs, for a single\nmoment, and use your remaining strength to exchange places and look at\nthe opposite side of the shield.\u2019\n\nThey obeyed his words, and found to their confusion that they had been\nfighting in a quarrel in which each was right and each wrong.\n\n\u2018Father,\u2019 they said, \u2018we are fools. Grant us thy pardon for our folly and\nabsolution for our sin.\u2019\n\n\u2018Absolution,\u2019 said the hermit, \u2018is soon granted for faults which arise\nfrom the innate tendency of poor human nature. Wiser and older men than\nyou are prone to see only their own side of a question. Come, then, with\nme to my humble hermitage; there will I dress your wounds and offer you\nmy frugal fare; happy if from this lesson you may learn for the rest of\nyour lives, before indulging in vehement assertions and proceeding to\nviolent extremities, to \u201clook at the other side of the shield.\u201d\u2019\n\nThe application of this fable to the polarity of politics will be obvious\nto every intelligent reader. As the earth is kept in its orbit by the\ndue balance of centripetal and centrifugal forces, so is every civilised\nsociety held together by the opposite influences of conservative and\nprogressive tendencies. The conservative tendency may be likened to the\ncentripetal force which binds the mass together, while the progressive\none resembles that centrifugal force which prevents it from being\nconcentrated in a rigid and inert central body without life or motion.\nAs Herbert Spencer truly says, \u2018from antagonistic social tendencies\nthere always results not a medium state, but a rhythm between opposite\nstates. Now the one greatly preponderates, and presently, by reaction,\nthere comes a preponderance of the other.\u2019 So it is with the antagonism\nof conservative and liberal tendencies. In the societies of the ancient\nworld, and to the present day in the East, the conservative tendency\nunduly preponderates, and they crystallise into inert masses in the\nform of despotisms, and of sacerdotal or administrative hierarchies. At\ntimes the pent-up forces which make for change accumulate, and, as in\nthe French Revolution, explode with destructive violence, shattering the\nold and bringing in new eras. But unless the balance between liberty and\norder is tolerably preserved in the individual citizens whose aggregate\nforms the society, after a period more or less prolonged of violent\noscillations they crystallise anew into fresh forms, in which another\nmilitary dynasty, or it may be administrative centralisation under the\nname of a republic, again asserts the preponderance of the centripetal\nforce.\n\nThe happiest nations are those in which the individual character of\nindividual citizens supplies the requisite balance. An ideal society is\none in which every citizen is at the same time liberal and conservative;\nlaw-abiding, and yet with a strong instinct for liberty of thought and\naction, for progress and for individual independence. It is among the\nTeutonic races, especially when they are placed in favourable conditions\nas in new countries, or in old countries where for ages\n\n    Freedom has widened slowly down,\n      From precedent to precedent,\n\nthat this happy ideal is most nearly realised. Hence it is that these\nraces are more and more coming to the front and surviving in the struggle\nfor existence.\n\nThe contrast of English and French colonisation affords a striking\ninstance of this difference of races. A century and a half ago France\nstood as well as England in the race for colonial supremacy. She had\nthe start of us in Canada, and her pioneers had explored the Great\nLakes, the Mississippi, and a large part of the continent of North\nAmerica west of the Rocky Mountains. To-day there are sixty millions\nof an English-speaking population in that continent, while French is\nscarcely spoken beyond the single province of Quebec. Political events\nhad doubtless something to do with this result; but it has been mainly\nowing to the innate qualities of the two races, for even the genius of\nChatham might have failed to establish our supremacy if it had not been\nbacked by the superior intelligence, energy, and staying power of the\nEnglish colonists. The ultimate cause of the triumph of the English over\nthe French element in America and India is doubtless to be found in\nthe stronger individualism of the former. The character of the French\nis eminently social, they like to live in societies, and shrink from\nencountering the hardships and still more the isolation of the life\nof early settlers. They like to be administered, and shrink from the\nresponsibility of hewing out, each for themselves, their own path in the\nrelations of civil life or in the depths of prim\u00e6val forests.\n\nIt is so to the present day, and they fail conspicuously in creating a\nlarge French population even at their own doors in Algeria; while in\ntheir more distant colonies they conquer and annex, but to see their\ncommerce fall into the hands of English, Germans, and Chinese, as in\nCochin China, or to stagnate as in New Caledonia. As a witty French\nwriter puts it, the trade of a remote French colony may be summed up\nas\u2014imports, absinthe and cigars; exports, stamped paper and red-tape.\nIndividualism in this case has been fairly pitted against Socialism, and\nhas beaten it out of the field by the verdict of Fact, which is more\nconclusive than any amount of abstract argument.\n\nTo return, however, to the field of politics. Where the essential quality\nof being law-abiding is wanting in individuals, it is hopeless to look\nfor real liberty. The centripetal force in societies, as in planets,\nmust be supplied somehow, or they would fly into dissolution; and if not\nby the integration of the tendencies of the individual units, then by\nexternal restrictions. Socialists may be allowed to make inflammatory\nharangues in a non-explosive atmosphere, but hardly to let off their\nfireworks in a powder-magazine. In order, however, that a nation shall be\nlaw-abiding, it is essential that the great majority should feel that,\non the whole, the law is their friend. It is not in human nature to love\nthat which injures, or to respect that which is felt to be unjust. The\nvolcanic explosion of the French Revolution was due to the feeling of\nthe French nation, with the exception of a few courtiers, nobles, and\npriests, that the existing order of things was their enemy, and law a\ntool in the hands of their oppressors. Even among English-speaking races\nwe find, in the unfortunate instance of Ireland, that under specially\nunfavourable circumstances the same effects may be produced by the same\ncauses. What has English law practically meant for centuries to an\naverage peasant of Kerry or Connemara? It has meant an irresistible\nmalevolent power, which comes down on him with writs of eviction to\ncompel him to pay a high rent on his own improvements. More than half the\npopulation of Ireland consists of tenants and their families occupying\nsmall holdings, paying less than 10_l._ a year of rent. Of an immense\nmajority of these small holdings two things may be safely asserted:\nfirst, that the total gross value of the produce is insufficient, after\npaying the rent, to leave a decent subsistence for the cultivator.\nSecondly, that this rent is levied to a great extent on the improvements\nof the tenant or his predecessors. Throughout the poorer parts of Ireland\nthe greater part of the soil, in its natural state of bog or mountain,\nis not worth a rent of a shilling an acre; but some poor peasant, urged\nby the earth-hunger which results from the absence of other sources of\nemployment, squats upon it, builds a wretched cottage, delves, drains,\nfences, and reclaims a few acres of land so as to bear a scanty crop of\noats and potatoes. When he has done so the landlord or landlord\u2019s agent\ncomes to him and says, \u2018This land is worth ten or fifteen shillings an\nacre, according to the standard of rents in the district, and you must\npay it or turn out;\u2019 and the law backs him in saying so by writs of\neviction and police. Put yourself in poor Pat\u2019s place, and say if you\nwould love the law and be law-abiding.\n\nIt would take me too far from the scope of this volume into the field of\ncontemporary politics if I attempted to point out who is to blame for\nthis state of things, or what are the remedies. It is enough to say that\nthis is the real Irish problem, and to point to it as an instance of the\ncalamitous effects which inevitably follow when the instincts of a whole\npopulation are brought by an unfavourable combination of circumstances\ninto necessary and natural antagonism with the laws which they are bound\nto obey.\n\nConservative legislation, by whatever party it is introduced, really\nmeans making the law correspond with the common sense and common\nmorality of all except the criminal and crotchety classes, so that the\nmajority may feel it to be their friend. For instance, the most truly\nconservative measure of recent times was probably that which legalised\ntrades\u2019 unions and gave working-men full liberty to combine for an\nincrease of wages. The old legal maxim, that such combinations were\nillegal as being in restraint of trade, was so obviously an invention of\nthe members of the upper caste who wore horsehair wigs, to give their\nfellows of the same caste who employed labour an unfair advantage, that\nit could not fail to cause feelings of discontent and exasperation\namong the masses of working-men. By its repeal the sting has been taken\nout of Socialism, and the British working-man has come to be, in the\nmain, a reasonable citizen, on whom incitements to violence in order to\ninaugurate Utopias, fall as lightly as the howlings of the barren east\nwind on the chimney-tops. It has led also to reasonable and peaceful\nadjustment of disputes between employers and labourers by arbitration\nand sliding-scales instead of by strikes and lock-outs. In the United\nStates of America the law-abiding instinct is even stronger. We find that\nstrikes attended with violence are almost always confined mainly to the\nforeign element of recently imported immigrants, and that the native-born\nAmerican citizen considers the laws as his own laws, and is determined\nto have them respected.\n\nThe balance between the conservative and progressive tendencies is,\nhowever, at the best, always imperfect, and inclines too much sometimes\nin one and sometimes in the other direction. In England the conservative\ntendency has had on the whole too much preponderance. I do not speak\nof political institutions, for in these of late years the balance has\nbeen pretty equally preserved; but in practical matters there is still a\ngood deal of old-fashioned stolid obstruction. This is most apparent in\nlaw and in education. The common or judge-made law, though on the whole\nwell-intentioned and upright, is fettered by so many technicalities and\nmusty precedents, that it fails in a great many instances to be, what\ncivil law ought to be, a cheap, speedy, and intelligible instrument\nfor enforcing honest dealings between man and man. One of our greatest\nrailway contractors once said to me, \u2018If I want to make an agreement\nwhich shall be absolutely binding, I make it myself on a sheet of\nnote-paper; if I want to have a loophole, I send it to my lawyer to have\nit drawn up in legal language and engrossed on sheets of parchment.\u2019\nAnother man of large experience in commercial and financial matters laid\ndown this axiom: \u2018If you want to know what is the law in a doubtful case,\nreason out what is the common-sense view of it, and assume that the\ndirect opposite is probably the law.\u2019 These may be extreme instances,\nas all such epigrammatic sentences generally are, but it is undeniable\nthat they have a considerable basis of substantial truth; and that law,\nwith its dilatory processes, its enormous expense, and its uncertain\nconclusions, may be, and often is, not an instrument of justice, but a\nweapon in the hands of an unscrupulous adventurer or of a dishonest rich\nman, to extort blackmail or to defeat just claims.\n\nAgain, what nation but England would tolerate so long a system of land\nlaw, so bristling with antiquated technicalities, so tedious, and so\nexpensive, as almost to amount to a prohibition of the transfer of land\nin small quantities; or could let the private interests of a mere handful\nof professional lawyers stand in the way of a codification of laws and a\nregistration of titles?\n\nEducation is another subject which shows how difficult it is to move\nthe sluggish ultra-conservative instincts of the English mind in the\ndirection of progress, when not stimulated by political conflict. What\nis education? The word tells its own story; it is to _draw out_, not to\n_cram in_; to unfold the capacities of the growing mind, strengthen the\nreasoning faculty, create an interest in the surrounding universe; in a\nword, to excite a love of knowledge and impart the means of acquiring it.\nFor the mass of the population, education is necessarily confined in a\ngreat measure to the latter object. The three R\u2019s\u2014reading, writing, and\narithmetic\u2014are indispensable requisites, and the acquirement of these,\nwith perhaps a few elements of history and geography, absorbs nearly all\nthe time and opportunity that can be afforded for attendance at school.\nFor any culture beyond this the great majority must depend on themselves\nin after life. But there are a large number of parents of the upper and\nmiddle classes who can and do keep their children at school for eight or\nten years, and spend a large sum of money in giving them what is called\na higher education. What is there to show for this time and money, even\nin the case of the highest schools, which ought to give the highest\neducation? On the credit side, a little Latin and less Greek, plenty of\ncricket and athletics, good physical training, and, best of all, on the\nwhole a manly, honourable, and gentlemanlike spirit. But on the debit\nside, absolute ignorance, except in the case of a few unusually clever\nand ambitious boys, of all that a cultivated man of the nineteenth\ncentury ought to know. No French, no German, and, what is worse, no\nEnglish. The average boy can neither write his own language legibly nor\ngrammatically, and, if he goes straight from a public school into a\ncompetitive examination, stands an excellent chance of being plucked for\nspelling. And, what is worst of all, he not only knows nothing, but cares\nto know nothing; his reasoning faculty has never been cultivated, and his\ninterest in interesting things has never been awakened. What is the first\nlesson he has had to learn? \u2018Propria qu\u00e6 maribus dicantur mascula dicas,\u2019\nthat is, words appropriated to males are called masculine\u2014a lesson which\nelicits as much reasoning faculty, and creates as much interest, as\nif he had been made to commit to memory that things made of gold are\ncalled golden. Suppose instead of this that the lesson had been that two\nvolumes of hydrogen combine with one volume of oxygen to form water.\nThe exercise to the memory is the same, but how different is the amount\nof thought and interest evoked, especially if the experiment is made\nbefore the class and each boy has to repeat it for himself! How many new\nsubjects of interest would this open up in the mind of any lad of average\nintelligence! How strange that there should be airs other than the air\nwe breathe, which can be weighed and measured, and that two of them by\ncombining shall produce their exact weight of a substance so unlike them\nas water! Or if the exercise of a class were to look through a microscope\nat the leaf of a plant or wing of an insect, and try who could best draw\nwhat they had seen and write a description of it in a legible hand and in\ngood English, how many faculties would this call into play compared with\nthe dull routine of parsing a Latin sentence or writing a halting copy of\nGreek iambics! Even grammar, the one thing which is supposed to be taught\nthoroughly, is taught so unintelligently that it awakens no interest\nbeyond that of a parrot learning by rote. From \u2018propria qu\u00e6 maribus\u2019\nthe scholar passes to \u2018as in pr\u00e6senti perfectum format in avi,\u2019 without\nan attempt to explain what language really means, how it originates\nfrom root-words, and how these inflections of \u2018as\u2019 and \u2018avi\u2019 are part\nof the devices which certain families of mankind, including our own,\nhave invented as a mechanism for attaching shades of meaning, such as\npresent and past, to the primitive root. Even the alphabet intelligently\ntaught opens up wide fields of interesting matter as to the history of\nancient nations, and their successive attempts to analyse the component\nsounds of their spoken words, and to pass from primitive picture-writing\nto phonetic symbols. But the instructors of the budding manhood of the\n_\u00e9lite_ of the nation, like Gallio, \u2018care for none of these things,\u2019\nand the organisation of our higher schools seems to be stereotyped on\nthe principle that they are made for teachers rather than for scholars,\nand that their chief _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_ is to enable a limited number of\nhighly respectable gentlemen from the Universities to realise comfortable\nincomes with a maximum of holidays and a minimum of trouble. And the\nparents support the system because so many of them really reverence rank\nmore than knowledge, and are willing to compound for their sons growing\nup ignorant, idle, and extravagant, if by any chance they can count a\nlord or two among their acquaintance.\n\nMr. Francis Galton, in the course of his interesting inquiries as to the\neffect of heredity and education on character and attainments, took the\nvery practical course of addressing a set of questions to some hundred\nand eighty of our most distinguished men as to the hereditary qualities\nof their ancestors, and the various influences which they considered had\ndone most to promote or to retard their success in life. Of course he\nreceived a variety of answers, \u2018quot homines tot sententi\u00e6,\u2019 but upon one\npoint there was a striking unanimity. \u2018They almost all expressed a hatred\nof grammar and the classics, and an utter distaste for the old-fashioned\nsystem of education. There were none who had passed through this old high\nand dry education who were satisfied with it. Those who came from the\ngreater schools usually did nothing there, and have abused the system\nheartily.\u2019\n\nAnd yet the system goes on, and the Eton Latin grammar will probably be\ntaught, and hexameters written, for another generation. Surely the needle\nswings here too strongly towards the negative or obstructive pole.\n\nThe instances are so numerous in social and practical life in which it is\nnecessary to look at both sides of the shield that the difficulty is in\nselection. Take the case of patriotism. Patriotism is beyond all doubt\na great virtue\u2014in fact, the fertile mother of many of the higher and\nheroic virtues. Who does not sympathise with the legends of Wallace and\nWilliam Tell, and scorn with Walter Scott\n\n          the man with soul so dead\n    Who never to himself has said,\n    This is my own, my native land?\n\nAnd yet how thin a line of partition separates it from narrow-minded\narrogance and insolent ignorance! Reflected in the latter form from\nParis, in hysterical shouts now of \u2018\u00c0 Berlin, \u00c0 Berlin!\u2019 and now \u2018\u00c0\nbas perfide Albion!\u2019 we call it \u2018Chauvinism,\u2019 and recognise it as an\nunlovely exhibition. But call it \u2018Jingoism,\u2019 and let it take the form\nof the bellowings of some stupid bull, as the red flag, now of a French\nand now of a Russian scare, crosses his line of vision, and we are\nblind to its deformity. Still there is another side to the shield, for\neven \u2018Jingoism,\u2019 which is only another word for patriotism run mad,\nis more respectable than the opposite extreme of a sordid and narrow\nminded parochialism, which shrinks behind the \u2018silver streak,\u2019 measures\neverything by the standard of pounds, shillings, and pence, and, with\nwhat Tennyson calls\n\n    The craven fear of being great,\n\ngroans over the responsibilities of extended empire. The growth of such\na spirit among prominent politicians of the advanced Liberal school\nseems to me one of the most alarming symptoms of the day; but I take\ncomfort when I reflect that the most democratic community in the world,\nthat of the United States, is precisely the one which has shown most\ndetermination to maintain its national greatness, if necessary by the\nsword, and has made the greatest sacrifices for that object. If the\n\u2018copperheads\u2019 were a miserable minority in America, why should we be\nafraid of our \u2018English copperheads\u2019 ever becoming a majority in Old\nEngland?\n\nIn this, as in all similar cases, it is evident that true statesmanship\nconsists in hitting the happy mean, and doing the right thing at the\nright time; and that true strength stands firm in the middle between\nthe two opposite poles, while weakness is drawn by one or other of the\nconflicting attractions into\n\n    The falsehood of extremes.\n\nWhen Sir Robert Peel some forty years ago announced his conversion by the\nunadorned eloquence of Richard Cobden, and free trade was inaugurated,\nwith results which were attended with the most brilliant success, every\none expected that the conversion of the rest of the civilised world was\nonly a question of time, and that a short time. Few would have been found\nbold enough to predict that forty years later England would stand almost\nalone in the world in adherence to free-trade principles, and that the\nprotectionist heresy would not only be strengthened and confirmed among\nContinental nations such as France and Germany, but actually adopted by\nlarge and increasing majorities in the United States, Canada, Australia,\nand other English-speaking communities. Yet such is the actual fact at\nthe present day. In spite of the Cobden Club and of arguments which\nto the average English mind appear irresistible, free trade has been\nsteadily losing ground for the last twenty years, and nation after\nnation, colony after colony, sees its protectionist majority increasing\nand its free-trade minority dwindling.\n\nIt is evident there must be some real cause for such a universal\nphenomenon. In countries like France and Russia we may attribute it to\neconomical ignorance and the influence of cliques of manufacturers and\nselfish interests; but the people of Germany, and still more of the\nUnited States, Canada, and Australia, are as intelligent as ourselves,\nand quite as shrewd in seeing where those interests really lie. They are\nfettered by no traditional prejudices, and their political instincts\nrather lie towards freedom and against the creation of anything like\nan aristocracy of wealthy manufacturers. And yet, after years of\nfree discussion, they have become more and more hardened in their\nprotectionist heresies.\n\nWhat does this prove? That there are two sides to the shield, and not, as\nwe fancied in our English insularity, only one.\n\nFree trade is undoubtedly the best, or rather the only possible, policy\nfor a country like England, with thirty millions of inhabitants,\nproducing food for less than half the number, and depending on foreign\ntrade for the supplies necessary to keep the other half alive. It is the\nbest policy also for a country which, owing to its mineral resources,\nits accessibility by sea to markets, its accumulated capital, and the\ninherited qualities, physical and moral, of its working population, has\nunrivalled advantages for cheap production. Nor can any dispassionate\nobserver dispute that in England, which is such a country, free trade\nhas worked well. It has not worked miracles, it has not introduced an\nindustrial millennium, the poor are still with us, and it has not saved\nus from our share of commercial depressions. But, on the whole, national\nwealth has greatly increased, and, what is more important, national\nwell-being has increased with it, the mass of the population, and\nespecially the working classes, get better wages, work shorter hours, and\nare better fed, better clothed, and better educated than they were forty\nyears ago.\n\nThis is one side of the shield, and it is really a golden and not an\nillusory one. But look at the other side. Take the case of a country\nwhere totally opposite conditions prevail: where there is no surplus\npopulation, unlimited land, limited capital, labour scarce and dear, and\nno possibility of competing in the foreign or even in the home market\nwith the manufactures which, with free trade, would be poured in by\ncountries like England, in prior possession of all the elements of cheap\nproduction. It is by no means so clear that protection, to enable native\nindustries to take root and grow, may not in such cases be the wisest\npolicy.\n\nTake as a simple illustration the case of an Australian colony imposing\nan import duty on foreign boots and shoes. There is not a doubt that\nthis is practically taxing the immense majority of colonists who wear\nand do not make these articles. But, on the other hand, it makes the\ncolony a possible field for emigration for all the shoemakers of Europe,\nand shoemaking a trade to which any Australian with a large family can\nbring up one of his sons. Looking at it from the strict point of view of\nthe most rigid political economist, the maximum production of wealth,\nwhich is the better policy? The production of wealth, we must recollect,\ndepends on labour, and productive labour depends on the labourer finding\nhis tools\u2014that is, employment at which he can work. A labourer who cannot\nfind work at living wages is worse than a zero: he is a negative quantity\nas far as the accumulation of wealth is concerned. On the other hand,\nevery workman who finds work, even if it may not be of the ideally best\ndescription, is a wealth-producing machine. What he spends on himself and\nhis family gives employment to other workmen, and the work must be poor\nindeed if the produce of a year\u2019s labour is not more than the cost of a\nyear\u2019s subsistence. The surplus adds to the national capital, and thus\ncapital and population go on increasing in geometrical progression. The\nfirst problem, therefore, for a new or a backward country is to find \u2018a\nfair day\u2019s wages for a fair day\u2019s work,\u2019 for as many hands as possible.\nThe problem of making that employment the most productive possible is\na secondary one, which will solve itself in each case rather by actual\npractice than by abstract theory.\n\nThis much, however, is pretty clear, that in order to secure the maximum\nof employment it must be varied. All are not fit for agricultural work,\nand, even if they were, if the conditions of soil and climate favour\nlarge estates and sheep or cattle runs rather than small farms, a large\namount of capital may provide work for only a small number of labourers.\nOn social and moral grounds, also, apart from dry considerations of\npolitical economy, progress intelligence and a higher standard of\nlife are more likely to be found with large cities, manufactures, and\na variety of industrial occupations than with a dead level of a few\nmillionaires and a few shepherds, or of a few landlords and a dense\npopulation of poor peasants. If protection is the price which must be\npaid to render such a larger life possible, it may be sound policy to\npay it, and the result seems to show that neither it nor free trade is\ninconsistent with rapid progress, while, on the other hand, neither of\nthem affords an absolute immunity from the evils that dog the footsteps\nof progress, and from the periods of reaction and depression which\naccompany vicissitudes of trade.\n\nHere, as in other cases, there are two sides of the shield, and true\nstatesmanship consists in seeing both, and doing the right thing, at the\nright place, and at the right time. If free trade is, as we believe,\nultimately to prevail, it will be an affair of time. The real trial of\nprotection comes when it has stimulated production to a point which gluts\nthe home market and leaves a surplus which must be exported. Exports of\narticles the cost of which has been artificially raised by protection,\ncannot compete in the world\u2019s market with the cheaper products of\nfree-trade countries. Vicissitudes therefore of prosperity and depression\nmust tend to become more frequent and more severe, and, if production\ngoes on, a point must be reached where, at whatever cost, it must either\nbe arrested or made capable of competing in the wider market. The United\nStates are probably not far from such a point, and it would have been\nalready reached but for the immense and unexhausted resources of that\nvast continent. In France the point has apparently been reached, and we\nfind that, with a lower scale of wages than in England, it is becoming\nmore and more difficult every day to maintain that lower scale, and the\nexport trade of its manufactured goods to foreign markets.\n\nProtection, leading to higher wages and profits than can be permanently\nmaintained, and artificially enhancing the cost of living to the working\nclasses, threatens, more and more every day, to introduce strained\nrelations between capital and labour in most countries of Europe.\n\nThe relation between capital and labour affords a good instance of the\ninevitable error of applying hard and fast logical conclusions to the\ncomplex and ever-varying problems of actual life. Ricardo and other\ndistinguished writers on political economy have assumed that the two\nconstitute a fundamental antagonistic polarity. Wealth, they say, is the\njoint product of capital and labour, and, as in the case of a cake which\nhas to be divided between C and L, the more C gets the less is left for\nL, and _vice vers\u00e2_. The theory sounds plausible: but what says fact? In\nthe most unmistakable manner it pronounces, as the outcome of practical\nexperience, that the profits of capital and the wages of labour rise\nand fall together. High profits mean high wages, rising profits rising\nwages, falling profits falling wages. It has been proved so in a thousand\ninstances, and not one can be quoted where the one factor has varied in\nan inverse, and not in a direct, ratio with the other. It is obvious that\nthere must be some fallacy in Ricardo\u2019s argument. The fallacy is this: he\nassumes the cake to be of fixed dimensions, whereas in point of fact it\nvaries, sometimes diminishing to zero, or even to a negative quantity,\nat others expanding to many times its original size. A new gold-field is\ndiscovered in a remote country, and forthwith profits rise to cent. per\ncent., and wages to a pound a day; a bad season and depression of trade\novertake an old country, and the gross value of the produce of many a\nfarm is insufficient to cover expenses and depreciation, even if the\nlabourers worked for nothing. The polarity is therefore confined to the\nlimited and temporary case of the division of the profit, where there\nis a profit, in particular trades and in individual instances. And this\nis regulated mainly by the accustomed scale of wages and standard of\nliving of the workmen, and their opportunities of finding employment\nelsewhere if dissatisfied with the terms offered to them. On the whole,\nit may be said that capital has the best of it on a rising, and wages on\na falling, market. A manufacturer or mine-owner\u2019s profit may rise from\nfive to twenty per cent. without quadrupling the rate of wages; but, on\nthe other hand, it may fall from twenty per cent. to five, or even for a\ntime below zero, without a proportionate diminution in the price paid for\nlabour. Capital is, in fact, the great insurer of labour, the flywheel\nwhich regulates the motion of the industrial machine. This will be best\nillustrated by a practical instance. The Brighton Railway Company for\nseveral consecutive years paid no dividend, or only a trifling amount,\non the shareholders\u2019 capital, but during the whole of this time it gave\nsteady employment at good wages to upwards of ten thousand workmen.\nThe Blaenavon Coal and Iron Company in South Wales was for many years\na losing concern, and successive capitalists lost the best part of a\nmillion pounds in it, until at length it was reorganised with a small\ncapital and became a fairly prosperous concern. During the whole of this\ntime it gave employment at fair wages to several thousand workmen. Which\nhad the best of it in these two cases, capital or labour, and where\nwould the workmen have been on any communistic or co-operative system?\nIn fact it will be apparent to any one who will study dispassionately\nthe statistics of any line of inquiry, such as the scale of wages, the\nprice of provisions, the accumulations of savings banks and provident\nsocieties, &c., for the last twenty years, that the working classes have\nhad the lion\u2019s share of the vast increase which has taken place in the\nwealth and income of the nation. I am glad that it is so, for it is\nbetter, both morally and politically, that the condition of the masses\nshould be improved, and their standard of living raised, than that\ncapital should accumulate too exclusively in large masses.\n\nStill there is a good deal to be said for such large accumulations.\nLet us go to the United States of America for an illustration, where\neverything is on a large scale, and colossal fortunes have been made in\na few years. The _modus operandi_ by which most of these fortunes have\nbeen made may be described according to the way we look at it, either\nas railway jobbing or as pioneering the way in useful enterprise. The\nconstruction of the first railway across the continent to California\nis a typical instance. A clique or syndicate of wealthy speculators\nmake surveys and estimates of a line across deserts and over mountain\nranges, and ascertain pretty accurately what it will cost. They form\na company with a capital of double that cost, and by subventions from\nthe Government, grants of land, and sale of mortgage bonds, raise the\nhalf really required, and hold the other half in shares as profit in\npaper. The line is made, and if the traffic turns out well, and there\nis a period of speculation in the money market, the paper is turned\ninto dollars, and, if the line really costs, say, 10,000,000_l._ or\n20,000,000_l._, the promoters realise an equal amount as profit.\n\nThis has two sides to it: it is doubtless bad for the public to have\nto pay rates which give a return on twice the actual cost, and the\npossession of a close monopoly in the hands of a few millionaires may\nbe abused to the detriment of individual traders. But, on the other\nhand, the railway could not have been made in any other way. If it had\nbeen necessary to wait until the slow growth of population insured such\na traffic as would induce the ordinary public to subscribe for shares\nat par, you might have waited for twenty years before a single mile of\nrailway was made west of the Mississippi. Nor is this all: the enormous\nprofit realised in the first of these enterprises led to a rush of rich\nspeculators into the lottery of pushing railways ahead of traffic, in\nwhich there were such magnificent prizes. The continent was covered by\nnew railways built to create new traffic rather than to provide for\nthat which already existed. And the traffic was created, though, as\nthe lottery contained blanks as well as prizes, many of the original\npromoters were ruined. The second great line spanning the continent\u2014the\nNorthern Pacific\u2014ruined two successive sets of promoters, and is only now\nbeginning to be moderately successful.\n\nBut the final result has been that while British India, which went on\nwhat may be called the respectable system of getting a pound\u2019s worth of\nwork for every pound raised, has only 12,000 miles of railway, the United\nStates, under the speculative system, has got 120,000 miles. I cannot\ndoubt that the national wealth of America is greater at the present day\nthan if there had been no Jay Goulds or Vanderbilts, and the construction\nof her railways had been delayed on the average for twenty years.\n\nThe contrast between labour and capital or free trade and protection is\nonly a particular case of the larger polarity between what is called in\nscientific language egoism and altruism, or, in more popular phraseology,\nindividualism and socialism. According to one theory, the best result\nis obtained by leaving individuals as free as possible to act on\ntheir own suggestions of their duties and interests, and confining the\nintervention of the State to enforcing laws for the protection of life\nand property, and such measures as are obviously necessary for the safety\nof society. According to the other theory, the State ought to interfere\nwherever the results of individual liberty lead to abuses, and should\nendeavour to create a society as near to ideal perfection as possible,\nby administering and regulating the public and private affairs of its\ncitizens. It is obvious that the question has two sides, that extreme\nconclusions in either direction are, as is always the case, invariably\nfalse. Individualism carried too far would disintegrate society. It would\nbe impossible to leave it to the short-sighted selfishness of every\ncitizen to say whether an army and navy should be maintained for national\ndefence, and taxes should be levied for their support.\n\nIndividualism also easily passes over into a hard and cruel selfishness,\nwhich recognises no obligation beyond the letter of the law, and acts\npractically on the principle of \u2018Every one for himself, and the devil\ntake the hindmost.\u2019 It is this phase of individualism which makes\nenthusiasts and men of strong moral and religious sympathies declaim so\nvehemently against _laissez faire_, and cry aloud, like Carlyle, for a\nhero or benevolent despot who is to scourge humanity into the practice of\nall the virtues.\n\nOn the other hand, Socialism, if not confined within rigid limits\nof experience and common sense, is even more destructive in its\nconsequences. Civilised society is based on the security of private\nproperty and the observance of contracts. If these are liable, not\nmerely to be regulated in extreme and exceptional cases, but to be\nabsolutely condemned in principle, as by Socialists of the Proudhon\nschool, who declare, \u2018La propri\u00e9t\u00e9 c\u2019est le vol;\u2019 or overruled and set\naside whenever they are thought to conflict with humanitarian scruples or\nsentimental aspirations, society would be dissolved into its elements,\nto crystallise anew about some military dictator or other strong form\nof repressive government, who could restore it to a state of stable\nequilibrium in accordance with these fundamental laws.\n\nNo society based on the community of goods has ever existed, except on a\nvery limited scale and for a very short time, under some strong temporary\ninfluence such as religious excitement. In the early Christian Church it\nonly existed as long as its members were a handful of humble individuals\nwho were impressed with the idea that the end of the world was close at\nhand, and that sacrifices made on earth would be repaid at an early day\nwith compound interest in heaven. They acted on what was almost as much a\nprinciple of enlightened selfishness as if they had placed their money on\nthe best possible security at the highest possible interest.\n\nThe only existing society, as far as I am aware, which has everything\nin common, is a small sect of Shakers in the United States, which owes\nits limited success to two conditions\u2014first, that there is no marrying\nor giving in marriage; secondly, that a member invented a patent\nrat-trap\u2014conditions which are hardly likely to survive in the struggle\nfor life and become a type for general adoption.\n\nThe nearest approach to Communism in practical operation on a large\nscale is that of the village communities of Russia and parts of India,\nwhich certainly show no signs of being progressive types destined to\ngain ground. On the contrary, they fail to fulfil what is the first\ncondition of an agricultural community, that of obtaining a fair average\nproduce from the soil, and the more enterprising and intelligent moujiks\nor ryots invariably seek to obtain something which they can call their\nown and are not obliged to share with the idle and improvident. A\nconclusive objection to all schemes of Socialism or Communism is, that\nthey not only crush out all individual initiative and enterprise in\nmaterial life, but that they also destroy all incentives to individual\ncharity and benevolence. Why make sacrifices to help others, if they\nare already helped at your expense by the State? This is no theoretical\nobjection, but has been proved practically by the history of the poor\nlaws. What scope for individual charity was there in a parish like that\nin Buckinghamshire, where under the old poor law the rate had risen\nto twenty shillings in the pound, and the cultivation of the soil was\nabandoned? Or even in less extreme cases, any one who is acquainted with\nremote rural parishes inhabited by cotters and small farmers must be\naware that the poor law operates strongly to destroy the feeling of manly\nindependence and family affection which induced the poor to support their\nown aged and infirm relatives.\n\nIn many parts of Scotland with which I am personally acquainted men who\na generation ago would have thought it a disgrace to ask for help to\nsupport an aged father or mother, now think it only fair play, after\nhaving contributed for years to the poor rate, to try and get something\nout of it in return.\n\nAltruism, as Herbert Spencer well puts it, if carried to excess, defeats\nitself, for in annihilating egoistic vices it annihilates egoistic\nvirtues, and the result is zero\u2014a result which, as \u2018nature abhors a\nvacuum,\u2019 can happily never be attained, and the precepts of the Sermon on\nthe Mount must always remain maxims of private morality, rather than of\nState regulation.\n\nIt is of little use, however, to deal with such generalities; as long as\nwe confine ourselves to extreme instances on either side, it is as easy\nas it is idle to refute them. Profitable discussion only begins when\nwe enter on the wide intermediate space which lies between the extreme\nfrontier provinces, and, instead of arguing for absolute conclusions,\nendeavour to discover the happy mean in doubtful cases, where there\nreally are limitations of time and circumstance, and a good deal which\nmay be reasonably said on each side of the question.\n\nTake for instance the case of contract, which has been so much discussed\nwith reference to the Irish question. Nothing can be clearer than\nthat the enforcement of contracts is one of the principal duties of a\ngovernment. The principle of _caveat emptor_ may occasionally lead to\nresults not altogether consistent with strict morality; but there will\nalways be fools in the world, and it is better they should pay for their\nfolly than that the State should be perpetually interfering in the vain\nattempt to protect them. The bargain may be a bad one, but it is far\nbetter that men should be held to their bargains than that every loser\nshould have a loophole provided to escape by appealing to some legal\nquibble or State-provided tribunal of arbitration.\n\nBut there are limits to this salutary principle. The contract must be\na free one, freely entered into by parties who meet on equal terms. If\nit is a compulsory one, which the weaker party has practically no option\nof refusing, the case is altered. Thus, in the case of children, it is\nabsurd to say that they are free agents in contracting for the disposal\nof their labour, and the State properly interferes by Factory Acts to\nlimit the number of hours for which they are to work. So in the relations\nbetween landlord and tenant, whenever they meet on equal terms, and\nthe tenant has an option of either taking or refusing to take a farm\nat the rent asked, both sides must be held to their bargain, however\ndisadvantageous it may turn out for either of them. But if the landlord\nis practically omnipotent, and the tenant has no alternative but to\npromise to pay an impossible rent or to be turned out on the roadside\nand die of starvation, it is by no means so clear that the State should\nenforce the bargain unless the landlord submits to equitable terms. Or\nagain, if the rent is not due to the intrinsic value of the land, but\nis a confiscation of the tenant\u2019s improvements, it is far from being\nself-evident that the law should look only at landlords\u2019 rights and\nforget all about landlords\u2019 duties.\n\nIt is a question rather of fact than of argument or assertion, whether\nsuch a state of things does or does not prevail at any particular time\nin any particular country. If the contracts were fair bargains entered\ninto by free agents, they ought to be enforced whether prices have risen\nor fallen, leaving it to the humanity and self-interest of landlords to\nmake reasonable reductions. But if they were no more equal bargains than\nthose of slaves or factory-children, the State might fairly interfere to\nattach equitable conditions to the enforcement of inequitable contracts.\n\nThe antithesis between the rights and duties of property, especially in\nthe case of land, is one which raises many nice and difficult questions.\nSome theorists, like Henry George, are for solving it by ignoring the\nrights altogether. According to them, private property in land is the\nsource of all the evils that afflict modern society; poverty, depressions\nof trade, low profits, and low wages are caused by the constant drift\ntowards high rents, due to the possession by a small section of the\ncommunity of a monopoly in that which is as much a necessity of existence\nas air or water. Abolish private property in land, and straightway you\nwill have the millennium.\n\nIn this extreme form the fallacy of the argument is obvious. You cannot\nstop at land, but must have the courage of your opinion, and go the full\nlength, with Proudhon, of denouncing all property as robbery. For if the\nright of individual property is the first condition of civilised society,\nyou can hardly exclude that form of it which, in all ages and all\ncountries, has been practically the most powerful incentive to progress\nand civilisation.\n\nCompare the United States of America under their homestead laws, with\nRussia under a system of village communes; or the California of to-day\nwith that of fifty years ago under the Jesuit padres; and you will see\nthat the desire to acquire property in land has been what may be called\nthe high-pressure steam supplying the motive power to reclaim continents\nand multiply population.\n\nNor in principle is there any argument for the confiscation of land\nwhich would not equally apply to the confiscation of any other sort\nof property, when theorists, philanthropic at other people\u2019s expense,\nthought that the owner had more than was good for him, or had acquired\nit as an unearned increment, without working for it. Suppose two men, A\nand B, employed as engine-drivers on an American railway, have each saved\na hundred dollars. The railway has been a failure: intended to reach a\ndistant terminus, it has stopped halfway in a desert, for want of funds,\nand for years has paid no dividend. The hundred-dollar shares are only\nworth ten, and the land at the distant terminus is only worth ten dollars\nan acre. But A and B are sharp fellows, and see that if speculation\never revives the line will probably be completed, and both shares and\nland will become valuable. A buys ten shares with his hundred dollars,\nand B ten acres of land. The boom comes, the capital is found, the line\ncompleted, and the shares rise to par, and the land to a hundred dollars\nan acre. A and B have each realised nine hundred dollars by what may be\ndescribed, as you like to put it, either as an unearned increment or as\nprovidence and foresight. On what principle can you confiscate B\u2019s nine\nhundred dollars because it is in land, and leave A\u2019s untouched because it\nis in shares?\n\nOn the other hand, there is no doubt that when we come to more complex\ncases, in which land is held in large masses, fenced in, not by the\nnatural right of a man to the produce of his own exertions, but by\nartificial legal systems of inheritance and settlement, we are on\nneutral ground, where fair discussion is possible as to the limitations\nand conditions under which the State may afford its protection. Landed\nproperty is more the creature of law, and runs greater risks in case of\nrevolution or communistic legislation, than personal property, which is\nmore easily concealed or transferred. It is not unreasonable, therefore,\nthat it should pay a higher insurance in the form of taxation, and\nespecially when it passes by inheritance or settlement, when the new\nowner\u2019s title is to a great extent artificial and the creation of the\nlaw. No one can dispute the abstract justice of a succession duty on\nall property, landed or personal, in proportion to its amount, passing\nby operation of law: the only question can be as to the amount, and\nthe expediency of confining it within limits that shall not trench on\nconfiscation or impair the desire to accumulate capital. And in the case\nof land, there is no doubt that there are a good many instances in which\nthe question of the \u2018unearned increment\u2019 is raised more forcibly than in\nthe case of ordinary property. Take a practical instance within my own\nknowledge, for an illustration is often better than an argument. There\nwas a mountain property in Wales which, as a sheep or cattle farm, might\nbe worth at the outside 800_l._ a year. Coal and iron were discovered\nunder it, capitalists sank pits and erected works, two or three sets\nlost their money; but the works were carried on, a large amount of\nlabour was employed, and in course of time a town of some eight or nine\nthousand inhabitants, sprang up. The proprietor\u2019s 800_l._ a year grew\ninto 8,000_l._ from fixed rents and royalties, which he has enjoyed for\nthe last thirty years, through good times and bad, without being called\non to contribute a penny towards schools, churches, roads, sewers, water,\nor any of the local objects necessary for the civilised existence of the\npopulation of eight thousand whose labour has added to his wealth. I do\nnot blame him: the law told him to do what he liked with his own, and\nit probably never occurred to him that he was under any moral obligation\nto go beyond the law. But I do think that the law would have been more\njust, and better for the interests of the community, if it had made\nsome portion of this unearned increment of 7,000_l._ a year liable for\na contribution towards the sanitary and other objects essential for the\ndecent existence of the town which had grown up on this property and\ngiven it this increased value. I cannot help thinking that centuries of\nlandlord legislation, and of a public opinion based mainly on that of the\nwealthy and specially of the landed classes, have made our laws in many\nrespects too favourable to the predominant interests, and that the swing\nof the pendulum now is, and properly is, in the direction of recognising\nthe duties as well as the rights of property.\n\nWe must take care, however, not to let it swing too far in this\ndirection, for of the two evils it is better to put up with occasional\ncases of hardship and oppression on the part of bad landlords than to\nendanger the security of property by reforms pushed to extremes at the\ndictation of impulsive masses, designing demagogues, or sentimental\nphilanthropists.\n\nHerbert Spencer, in his works on Sociology, often dwells with great\nforce on the evils which arise from State interference. There can be no\ndoubt that it is very undesirable that the State should become a sort\nof Jack-of-all-trades, and undertake branches of business which can be\nconducted by private enterprise. It is undesirable for two reasons:\nfirst, because the work is certain to cost more and be worse done;\nsecondly, for the still more important reason that it tends to extinguish\nindividual enterprise, strangle progress with red-tape, and teach a\nnation to look, like children to outside guidance, rather than, like\nmen to their own. Still the question has two sides. Whatever individual\nenterprise can do should be left to it; but there are, in the complex\nconditions of modern society, a number of things which cannot be done by\nindividuals, and which must either be left undone or done by the State,\nor by some local authority, joint-stock company, or other quasi-monopoly\nsanctioned by the State. Thus, if it were a question of bringing coals\nfrom Newcastle by sea, no one would suggest that the State should\ninterfere with the private enterprise of individual shipowners. But to\nbring them by land requires railways, and railways can only be built by\ncapitals beyond the reach of private individuals. If the State had not\ndelegated a portion of its powers to joint-stock companies, not a ton of\ncoal would ever have been brought by land to London.\n\nAnd if the State may thus occasionally delegate its powers with advantage\nto the community, there are cases in which it may, with equal advantage,\nundertake itself branches of the nation\u2019s business. For instance, the\nPostal Service. The advantages of a cheap and uniform system for the\ncollection and delivery of letters throughout the whole kingdom are\nso great that they far outweigh any theoretical objections to State\ninterference. Possibly some of the larger towns might have been as well\nor better served by private enterprise, but no non-paying district would\nhave had a post-office, and the enormous commercial and educational\nbenefits of the penny post would have been in a great measure lost to the\ncommunity.\n\nThe case of telegraphs is not so clear. Probably, on the whole, the\nadvantages of a uniform State management preponderate, but there are\ndrawbacks which make it doubtful. Even at a sixpenny rate a great deal\nof the telegraphic communication of the large towns and active centres\nof business is taxed to make up for the deficiency of the rest of the\nkingdom. And invention and improvement in telegraphy are no doubt checked\nto a considerable extent by creating a State monopoly whose first duty it\nis to try to satisfy its masters at the Treasury by making the system pay.\n\nWhen we come to railways we are on debateable ground, and it is fairly\narguable that they should be worked by the State for the public good.\nBut the objections here outweigh the advantages. Every one who has any\npractical experience of the working of railways must be aware that\nthe simplicity and uniformity of the penny postal system are totally\ninapplicable, and that the traffic of the country requires, above all\nthings, great freedom and elasticity in meeting, day by day, the varying\ncontingencies which arise. Here is an illustration: In a certain town\nin France, on a railway worked by the State, it was determined to have\na _f\u00eate_ in order to raise funds for a hospital, and, as an attraction,\nto bring down from Paris a small troop of actors and have a play in the\nevening. The question turned on the railway consenting to give them a\nreduced fare for the return journey. The manager of the railway was\nquite willing, but said that he had no power to alter the tariff without\npermission from the Minister of Public Works. The permission was applied\nfor, and the result was that it arrived exactly on the day twelve months\nafter the _f\u00eate_ had been held.\n\nContrast this with the case of the general manager of the London and\nNorth Western Railway sitting in his office at Euston and receiving half\na dozen telegrams asking him to quote special rates, one perhaps for beef\nfrom Chicago to London, another for emigrants from Hamburg to New York\n_via_ Liverpool, and all requiring telegraphic answers then and there, if\nthe business is to be done at all.\n\nAgain, if railways had been in the hands of the State, I do not suppose\nthat we should have had half our present mileage; for the Treasury would\nnever have sanctioned the outlay of public money on lines which could\nnot show the prospect of a fair return on the capital, and it would\nhave vetoed any multiplication of trains or reduction of rates which\nthreatened loss to the exchequer. I can speak with some authority on this\npoint, for I have been both Chairman of a railway company and Secretary\nof the Treasury, and I am certain that, in the former capacity, I have\nintroduced important innovations, such as excursion trains and cheap\nperiodical tickets, by which the public have greatly benefited, which I\nshould have vetoed in the latter capacity.\n\nStill there may be exceptional cases, as that of Ireland, where an\nunreasonable number of poor companies, in a poor country, wrangling among\nthemselves, and giving a bad service at an excessive cost, intensify\nsocial and political evils, where the arguments in favour of a State\npurchase may outweigh the objections; and the extent and nature of\nState control over British railways is always a question fairly open to\ndiscussion.\n\nIn other departments, the supply of articles such as water and gas, and\nthe enforcement of sanitary conditions, are probably best left to local\nauthorities: in the latter case, under some central supervision to see\nthat the duty is not evaded. Wherever neglect involves danger to others,\nas in the case of small-pox and other contagious epidemics, it is clear\nthat the decision cannot be left to individuals, and the State is bound\nto interfere to enforce rational precautions.\n\nSo also the State is bound to undertake trades which are essential for\nthe protection of the nation against foreign enemies. Our dockyards\nand arsenals may, and doubtless do, often make mistakes and turn out\nexpensive work; but we could not safely leave the building of ironclads\nand supply of cannon solely to private enterprise, for there is no such\nlarge and steady demand for such articles as would induce a number of\nprivate firms to erect works and keep up establishments adequate to\nsupply the wants which might arise in an emergency. In all such matters,\ntherefore, of national defence we must put up with a certain amount\nof drawbacks incidental to State management, and confine ourselves\nto endeavouring to reduce them to a minimum. And this is to a great\nextent within the power of the nation and its Parliament, by applying\ncommon-sense principles of business to national expenditure, and seeing\nthat while on the one hand we get as nearly as possible a pound\u2019s\nworth of work for every pound spent, on the other hand we do not spend\nnineteen shillings uselessly, because some Chancellor of the Exchequer\nwants to gain momentary popularity by the \u2018penny wise and pound foolish\u2019\neconomy of docking the extra shilling off the necessary estimates. In\nprivate life a man gets on by knowing when to spend as well as when not\nto spend, and true economy has no greater foe than spasmodic parsimony\nalternating almost certainly with spasmodic extravagance. It would be\neasy to multiply instances, for there are few phases of political and\npractical life to which the principle of polarity does not apply, where\nextremes are not false, and where there is not a good deal to be said on\nboth sides of the question. But the very obviousness of the principle\nmakes it difficult to deal with it generally without degenerating into\ncommonplace, while to trace its application exhaustively in any one\ninstance would require a volume. Those who wish to pursue the subject\nfurther will do well to study the works of Herbert Spencer, where they\nwill find the application of general principles to all the problems of\nsociology treated with a depth of philosophic insight and an abundance\nand aptness of illustration which I cannot pretend to equal. My ambition\nis of a humbler nature. I do not expect to set the Thames on fire,\nor to produce a revolution in modern thought; but I do hope that the\nviews which I have endeavoured to express may do somewhat to make some\nreaders more tolerant and charitable in their judgments, less bitter and\none-sided in controversy; and that whatever truth there may be in my\nideas will contribute to form a small part, neither more nor less than\nit deserves, of the great body of truth which is handed down from the\npresent to succeeding generations, and which becomes, long after I am\nthere to witness it, the inheritance of the human race in the course of\nits evolution.\n\nAnd now, before I take my final leave of the reader, let me for a few\nmoments throw the reins on the neck of fancy, and suppose myself standing\nwith that group of Parsees by the shore of the Indian Ocean, listening to\nits murmured rhythm, inhaling the balmy air, watching the silver crescent\nof the new moon, and musing on the wise sayings of the ancient sage;\nthe sum of the reflections which I have tried to embody in the preceding\npages would take form and crystallise in the following sonnet:\u2014\n\n    Hail! gracious Ormuzd, author of all good,\n    Spirit of beauty, purity, and light;\n    Teach me like thee to hate dark deeds of night,\n    And battle ever with the hellish brood\n    Of Ahriman, dread prince of evil mood\u2014\n    Father of lies, uncleanness, envious spite,\n    Thefts, murders, sensual sins that shun the light,\n    Unreason, ugliness, and fancies lewd\u2014\n    Grant me, bright Ormuzd, in thy ranks to stand,\n    A valiant soldier faithful to the end;\n    So when I leave this life\u2019s familiar strand,\n    Bound for the great Unknown, shall I commend\n    My soul, if soul survive, into thy hand\u2014\n    Fearless of fate if thou thine aid will lend.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n    Abraham, 186.\n\n    Accumulator, the electric, 63, 64.\n\n    Acetic ether, 73, 74.\n\n    Acids, 69, 70.\n\n    Aerobes, 87, 88.\n\n    Affinities, chemical, 51, 52, 55, 68;\n      of Zoroastrianism and art, 212.\n\n    Agriculture, 245.\n\n    Ahriman, 4, 180, 202, 203, 265.\n\n    Air, a cubic centimetre of, 20;\n      pressure of, 24, 25.\n\n    Aleutian Islands, 97.\n\n    Alga, 95, 105;\n      forests of the, 97.\n\n    Algonquins, funeral custom, 149.\n\n    Alizarine manufactured, 86.\n\n    Alkalies, 69, 70.\n\n    America, woman in, 111, 112;\n      respect for law in, 235.\n\n    Am\u0153ba, 76, 77, 82;\n      propagation of the, 103, 104, 117.\n\n    Amos, 187.\n\n    Anemone, sea, 104.\n\n    Angiosperms, 98.\n\n    Animal life, 92, 93;\n      Zoroaster enjoins kindness to, 207.\n\n    Aquarium, 93;\n      nature one huge, 101.\n\n    Arnold, Matthew, 207;\n      definition of the Deity by, 171.\n\n    Aryan race, divisions of the, 199;\n      religion of the, 200;\n      language, 200.\n\n    Assur, 153.\n\n    Astronomy, 5;\n      in early religions, 153.\n\n    Athanasian Creed, 181-183.\n\n    Atlantic cable, 60, 61.\n\n    Atoms, 5, 10, 14;\n      weight of, 15-17;\n      theory of, 16;\n      elementary, 18;\n      and their laws, 19, 22, 25;\n      vibrations of, 26;\n      and ether, 32;\n      and the vortex theory, 33, 34, 36;\n      action of heat on, 43;\n      and chemical energy, 50;\n      affinities and repulsions of, 51;\n      the primary element of matter, 66, 67;\n      polarity of, 68;\n      in hydrates, 69;\n      of hydrogen in acids, 69, 70;\n      of oxygen, 70;\n      multipolar, 71;\n      magnetic, 72;\n      dimensions of, 119.\n\n    Augustin, 201.\n\n    Australia, free trade in, 242, 245.\n\n    Authorities to whom the author is indebted, x.\n\n    Atavism, 103, 118.\n\n    Avogadro, law of, 13.\n\n    Axolotl, 123.\n\n\n    Bacteria, 85, 105.\n\n    Balkh, Zoroaster at, 201.\n\n    Bees, reproduction of, 106.\n\n    Bel, 152, 153.\n\n    Berkeley, Bishop, 142.\n\n    Berlin, spirit-seeing in, 166.\n\n    Blindness cured by hypnotism, 165.\n\n    Bombay, death rate in, 1881, 1882, 218.\n\n    Books, the best mirrors of an age, 111, 112;\n      modern French novels, 113.\n\n    Bozu, Buddhist priest upon the Divine Creator, 160, 161.\n\n    Brahm, 114.\n\n    Brahminism, 207.\n\n    Braid, Dr., cures by hypnotism, 165, 168, 193.\n\n    Brain, the, 125, 126;\n      tissue of the, 127;\n      average weight of the human, 129;\n      organs of the, 130, 131;\n      areas of speech, hearing, and sight in the, 132;\n      intellectual faculties in the, 133;\n      abnormal state of the, 134, 135;\n      action of the grey tissue of the, 137;\n      of the higher animals, 137, 138;\n      cells of the, 140;\n      action in a murder, 189;\n      organ of will in the, 191, 192;\n      effect of injuries to the, 192;\n      effect of will on the, 194.\n\n    Bret Harte, 110, 112.\n\n    Bruce, legend of the heart of, 228.\n\n    Buddha, 187.\n\n    Buddhism, 156;\n      in Shakespeare, 160;\n      the Divine Creator in, 160, 161;\n      morality of, 160, 184;\n      based upon pessimism, 177, 197, 198, 206, 207.\n\n    Burial of the dead, 149;\n      prehistoric, 151;\n      Parsee avoidance of, 208.\n\n    Butyric acid, 73, 74.\n\n    Byron on the Parsees, 219.\n\n\n    Calculus, the differential, 6, 28-32, 138.\n\n    California, 256.\n\n    Canterbury, Augustin at, 201.\n\n    Capital and labour, 176, 246-248.\n\n    Carbon, 16, 18, 71;\n      in dynamite, 50;\n      radicals of, 73, 74, 77;\n      in the protoplasm, 80;\n      early abundance of, 86;\n      in a dead body, 88;\n      plant life and, 93.\n\n    Carbonic dioxide, 16, 51, 82, 83, 92, 95, 96;\n      in plant life, 101.\n\n    Carlyle, 171, 188, 251.\n\n    Carnegie, Andrew, on modern worship, 219.\n\n    Catholic theology, 147.\n\n    Cause, the Great First, 122, 162;\n      Dr. Temple\u2019s definition of, 170;\n      evolution of the idea of, 172, 201, 203;\n      Zoroaster and, 204;\n      the only reasonable theory, 208.\n\n    Cell, the first step in organisms, 78, 79;\n      the nucleated multiplication of the, 104.\n\n    Centrifugal force, 89, 90, 117.\n\n    Centripetal force, 89, 90, 117;\n      in societies, 233.\n\n    Chaldean legends, 152, 153;\n      of the Creation, 193.\n\n    Chalk, formation of, 95.\n\n    Chemical energy in electricity, 60.\n\n    Chemistry, 5, 14, 25;\n      elementary substances in, 17, 18, 74;\n      energy in, 47;\n      a modern law of change, 75;\n      and the protoplasm, 84.\n\n    Chinese funeral custom, 149;\n      religion, origin of the, 152;\n      religion, 156, 159;\n      myths, 164;\n      faith in a virgin mother, 155.\n\n    Chlorine, 16, 70, 71.\n\n    Christianity, 157, 198;\n      the position of women influenced by, 108, 109;\n      Pauline, 177;\n      the creed of, 180, 181;\n      impractical, 182;\n      morality of, 184, 185, 188;\n      influenced by Oriental asceticism, 212.\n\n    Clausius, 19.\n\n    Cleanliness and religion, 223, 224.\n\n    Clerk Maxwell, 19.\n\n    Coal, 45, 49, 97;\n      heat in burning, 61, 62;\n      land animals found in, 99.\n\n    Cobden, Richard, 242.\n\n    Colloids, 77, 78, 80.\n\n    Comets, 25;\n      supernatural dread of, 164.\n\n    Communism, 252, 253.\n\n    Conceptions, our, 143.\n\n    Confucianism, 184, 198.\n\n    Conservative legislation, 230;\n      in England, 235.\n\n    Contract, law of, 254, 255.\n\n    Creation, unknown, 19;\n      early myths of the, 152, 153.\n\n    Cromwell, 213.\n\n    Crystals, 10, 26-28.\n\n    Cumming, Dr., 47.\n\n\n    Darwin, 6, 122, 172;\n      his theory of Pangenesis, 119;\n      his theory of evolution, 121.\n\n    David, 186.\n\n    Descartes, 141.\n\n    Deus, derivation of the word, 200.\n\n    Deutsch, Emmanuel, on the Talmud, 172, 188.\n\n    Diamond, the, 74, 77.\n\n    Dion\u00e6a, 96.\n\n    Dog, will in a, 39, 40;\n      sense of right and wrong in a, 193.\n\n    Drummond, Professor, 3.\n\n    Dryopithecus, 100.\n\n    Dynamite, 48, 50, 74, 176.\n\n    Dynamo, the, 61-63.\n\n\n    Earth, structure of the, 51, 52;\n      first temperature of the, 86;\n      orbit of the, 22, 89, 117.\n\n    Echidna, the, 124.\n\n    Education, 237-240.\n\n    Egypt, ancient tombs in, 149, 150;\n      animal worship in, 150;\n      priests in, 152;\n      astronomy in, 153, 154;\n      a virgin mother worshipped in, 155;\n      religious morality in, 184.\n\n    Electric energy, 47;\n      light currents, effects of, 57-59;\n      telegraph, 59, 60;\n      accumulator, 61;\n      light, 56, 57, 61;\n      engines, 62, 63.\n\n    Electricity, 2, 14;\n      ether in, 25;\n      nature of, 52-55;\n      in pith balls, 52, 53, 71, 72;\n      velocity of the current in, 56;\n      and magnets, 58, 59;\n      storage of, 64.\n\n    Embryology, 106.\n\n    Emerson, vii.\n\n    Energy, 2;\n      nature of, 35, 36, 38, 66, 67;\n      of motion and position, 37, 48;\n      transformation of, 41, 42;\n      in heat and light, 43, 44, 47;\n      variations of, 47, 48;\n      molecular, 49;\n      chemical, 50;\n      in electricity, 54-57;\n      cost of, obtained from zinc, 61, 62;\n      conservation of, 62, 63, 139.\n\n    England, conservatism in, 236, 237;\n      education in, 237-239;\n      free trade in, 243.\n\n    English literature, 111;\n      woman in, 112, 113;\n      colonisation, 232.\n\n    Eozoon Canadiense, 99.\n\n    Ethelbert, 201.\n\n    Ether, 22, 36;\n      density of, 24, 25;\n      waves, 26, 43;\n      vibrations of, 27;\n      attempt to identify, with atoms, 32, 35;\n      nature of, 66.\n\n    Evil, origin of, 170, 173;\n      attempts to reconcile it with good, 178;\n      consistent with theory of God, 173, 202;\n      modern treatment of, 224.\n\n    Evolution, 6, 8, 121;\n      of religion, 4, 155, 156, 185, 186;\n      of matter, 80;\n      of life, 100;\n      important facts in the history of, 123;\n      does not tend to virtue, 173, 176;\n      of moral ideas, 186, 191;\n      of the horror of murder, 189, 190.\n\n\n    Fable of the shield, 227-230;\n      applied to politics, 230;\n      to commerce, 243, 244.\n\n    \u201cFaust\u201d a Zoroastrian drama, 209.\n\n    Ferdousi, 201.\n\n    Fermentation, 87, 88.\n\n    Ferns in the primary epoch, 97.\n\n    Fetish worship, 150.\n\n    Fiji, 149, 189.\n\n    Fire, primitive means of obtaining, 41;\n      worship, 207, 220.\n\n    Fish shells in the Tertiary epoch, 98;\n      in the Silurian epoch, 99.\n\n    Fungi, 95.\n\n    France, protection in, 246;\n      state railways in, 261.\n\n    Franklin, Benjamin, 163.\n\n    French Revolution, 231, 233;\n      colonisation, 232;\n      trade in a colony, 233.\n\n    Frog with the brain removed, 137.\n\n\n    Galileo, 147, 164, 205.\n\n    Gallio, 239.\n\n    Gas in dynamite, 51.\n\n    Gases, law of, 11-13;\n      in water, 14;\n      kinetic theory of, 14, 33;\n      substances reduced to, 44;\n      expansion of, 45.\n\n    Galton, Mr. F., 240.\n\n    Genesis, the Creation in, 152, 153.\n\n    Geology, 5;\n      records of, 96;\n      earliest strata of, 97;\n      vegetable records in, 96-98;\n      animal records in, 99, 100.\n\n    Geometry, 139.\n\n    George, Henry, 256.\n\n    Ghosts, universal belief in, 149-151.\n\n    Glass, 49, 53.\n\n    Globigerena, 95.\n\n    God, Buddhist idea of, 161;\n      a magnified man, 170, 171;\n      Carlyle on, 171;\n      Arnold\u2019s definition of, 171;\n      Jewish doctors on, 172;\n      prevalent idea of miraculous intervention by, 173;\n      the author of good and evil, 179;\n      primitive Aryan word for, 200.\n\n    Grammar, 239, 240.\n\n    Gravity, the law of, 5, 16, 48, 49, 121, 144;\n      atoms subject to the, 34;\n      universal confidence in the, 148;\n      a dangerous heresy, 164.\n\n    Greeks, religion amongst the, 155, 156.\n\n    Gushtasp, 201.\n\n    Gymnosperms, 97, 98.\n\n\n    Haeckel, 119, 122.\n\n    Hale, Justice, 164.\n\n    Halley, 164.\n\n    Haug, Dr., 202, 205.\n\n    Heat, produced by work, 41, 42;\n      nature of, 43;\n      performs work, 44, 47;\n      and electricity, 54, 61;\n      and the stability of substances, 74;\n      in chemistry, 75.\n\n    Helmholz, 32.\n\n    Hercules, 193, 197.\n\n    Heredity, the principle of, 117-121;\n      in education, 240.\n\n    Hesperornis, 123.\n\n    Hillel, morality of, 188.\n\n    Hindoo religion, 152, 156;\n      migration, 199.\n\n    Horace, 163.\n\n    Horse, 119.\n\n    Human remains in Tertiary period, 100;\n      implements, prehistoric, 144, 145.\n\n    Hume, 162.\n\n    Huxley, Professor, v., vi., 78, 86, 122, 172, 203;\n      on spontaneous generation, 85;\n      on the protista, 94;\n      on the uniformity of law in Nature, 146.\n\n    Hydrates, 69.\n\n    Hydrochloric acid, 16, 70, 71.\n\n    Hydrogen, 11, 13, 16-18, 70, 71, 74, 75;\n      composition of, 15;\n      in the sun, 26;\n      in dynamite, 50;\n      in water, 52, 68, 238;\n      in the accumulator, 63;\n      in acids, 69;\n      in the protoplasm, 80;\n      in a dead body, 88.\n\n    Hypnotism, 134, 192;\n      blindness cured by, 165, 166;\n      an old lady dancing through, 193.\n\n\n    Ibn Ezra, 172.\n\n    India, British railways in, 250.\n\n    Indians, North American, totem of the, 150;\n      murder amongst the, 189.\n\n    Indigotine, 86.\n\n    Induction, phenomena of, 58.\n\n    Intellectual faculties, the seat of the, 133, 134.\n\n    Iodine vapour, 75.\n\n    Iranian migration, 199;\n      language, 200.\n\n    Ireland, popular ignorance of the land question in, 9;\n      rents in, 233, 234;\n      contracts in, 254;\n      railways in, 262.\n\n    Iron, filings and a magnet, 1, 10, 11, 27;\n      contraction of, 49, 50;\n      bar and a magnet, 68;\n      rust, 68, 81;\n      motion of, 83.\n\n    Irving, Edward, 166.\n\n    Isaiah, 187.\n\n    Isomerism, 74.\n\n    Istar, vi.\n\n\n    Jehovah, gradual conception of, 157, 158, 186.\n\n    Jehuda Hilmi, 172.\n\n    Jesus, on miracles, 168, 169;\n      the personification of Ormuzd, 180-183, 204;\n      an historical personage, 198;\n      adopted a Jewish view of religion, 212.\n\n    Jewish doctors on God, 172;\n      gradual development of the, religion, 157;\n      morality in the, religion, 186, 187.\n\n    Jijibhoy, Jamsedjee, Sir, 217.\n\n    \u201cJingoism,\u201d 241.\n\n    Joule, Dr., 42, 46.\n\n    Jupiter, the planet, 22, 25.\n\n\n    Kant, 141, 142.\n\n    Kesar, 152, 153.\n\n    Knowledge, limits of our, 125-127, 136, 139-141.\n\n    Knox, John, 221.\n\n\n    Lakman and Lakmana, 152.\n\n    Latimer, 221.\n\n    Law in Nature, 6, 144, 145, 164, 171;\n      common, 236.\n\n    Lead, 63.\n\n    Leibnitz, 194.\n\n    Lichens, 95, 96.\n\n    Light, waves, 19, 23, 24, 26-28, 43;\n      velocity of, 21, 22;\n      energy in, 47;\n      electric, 56, 57, 61.\n\n    Lightning conductors, 163.\n\n    Lourdes, miracles at, 168.\n\n    Luther, 198\n\n\n    Magnet, the, 1, 2, 27, 68, 70, 71;\n      nature of, 58.\n\n    Magnetism, vii.\n\n    Mahometanism, 157, 158, 198, 213.\n\n    Maimonides on God, 172.\n\n    Manuals in geology, 100.\n\n    Manufacturers, generous, 217.\n\n    Marriage, 115.\n\n    Mass, the, 223.\n\n    Matter, 10;\n      nature of, 66, 67.\n\n    Meat, frozen, 45, 87.\n\n    Mechanical action in life, 39, 40, 91;\n      power, 41;\n      process in nerve action, 129, 130.\n\n    Menai Bridge, 50.\n\n    Mercury, 17, 44.\n\n    Metrical system, the, 42.\n\n    Mexican myths, 154, 155.\n\n    Microcrith, 15.\n\n    Microscope, 11, 239.\n\n    Mill, John Stuart, 161.\n\n    Milton, 209, 213.\n\n    Miracles, 6;\n      a question of evidence, 162, 163;\n      early belief in, 164;\n      uselessness of ordinary, 167, 170;\n      not found in Zoroastrianism, 204.\n\n    Molecules, 5, 10, 12, 22, 25;\n      weight of, 13;\n      in chemistry, 14;\n      of oxygen and hydrogen, 15;\n      composition of, 18;\n      in a cubic centimetre of air, 20;\n      vibrations of, 26;\n      the vortex theory of, 33, 34;\n      action of heat on, 43-46;\n      of nitrogen, 50;\n      nature of, 67;\n      complex, 73;\n      of monera, 79;\n      of the protoplasm, 80, 81.\n\n    Molecular energies, 47, 49.\n\n    Monera, 79, 94;\n      reproduction of the, 103, 117.\n\n    Monogamy, 109.\n\n    Monotheism, 156.\n\n    Moon, worship of the, 102, 153;\n      Parsee worship of the, 219.\n\n    Morality, in religions, 108, 184-188;\n      in nations, 110;\n      origin of, 190, 191.\n\n    Mormonism, 213.\n\n    Motion, of living beings, 83;\n      independent of will in the brain, 137, 192.\n\n    Music in religion, 222.\n\n    Murder, 189, 190.\n\n\n    Nerves, 129, 130;\n      divisions of the, 131;\n      channels of the, 133.\n\n    Newcome, Colonel, 211.\n\n    Newman, Cardinal, 147, 148, 159.\n\n    Newton, 16, 17, 28, 121, 138, 144, 205.\n\n    Nickel, a magnet, 68.\n\n    Nicolai, visions seen by, 166.\n\n    Nitric acid, 69.\n\n    Nitrogen, 18, 69, 88;\n      in dynamite, 50, 51;\n      in the protoplasm, 80.\n\n    Nitro-glycerine (dynamite), 50, 51.\n\n    Nitrous oxide, 51.\n\n    Northumberland House, lion on, 167.\n\n    Novelists, English, 111.\n\n    Nummulitic limestone, 94, 95.\n\n    Nursery rhymes, 142.\n\n    Nutrition, 81.\n\n\n    Octoroon, 118.\n\n    Oersted, 59.\n\n    Optimism, 176.\n\n    Ormuzd, 3, 4;\n      Jesus the modern, 180-182;\n      a definition of, 201, 202;\n      homage due to, 203;\n      sonnet to, 265.\n\n    Oxide of iron, 43, 81.\n\n    Oxygen, 11, 13, 14, 18, 57, 238;\n      composition of, 15;\n      is universal, 16;\n      weight of an atom of, 16;\n      and iron, 43;\n      in dynamite, 50;\n      affinities of, 52;\n      in the accumulator, 63;\n      in water, 68, 75;\n      bipolar, 70;\n      in the protoplasm, 80;\n      in contact with dead bodies, 88;\n      and animal life, 93, 96;\n      in plant life, 101.\n\n\n    Palgrave, 158.\n\n    Pangenesis, 119.\n\n    Pantheism, in China, 156;\n      prevalence of, 159, 160.\n\n    Paris, 241.\n\n    Parsees, the, 199;\n      creed of the, 205;\n      rites of the, 207, 208;\n      the distinguishing characteristics of the, 214-216;\n      women amongst, 215, 216;\n      a commercial people, 217;\n      death rate amongst the, 218;\n      Byron on the, 219;\n      modern worship of the, 219, 264.\n\n    Parthenogenesis, 106.\n\n    Pasteur, 87.\n\n    Patriotism, 240, 241.\n\n    Peel, Sir Robert, 242.\n\n    Pendulum, 37.\n\n    Perceptions, the basis of knowledge, 125, 140.\n\n    Permian formation, 97;\n      reptiles in the, 99.\n\n    Perron, Anquetil du, 203.\n\n    Peruvian myths, 154, 155.\n\n    Pessimism, 177, 178.\n\n    Pharisees, 168, 169.\n\n    Philo, 187.\n\n    Philosophy, and the unknown, 141;\n      in Eastern religion, 160.\n\n    Physical conditions and religious progress, 224.\n\n    Pigeon with the brain removed, 137, 192.\n\n    Pith-balls, electricity in, 52, 53, 71, 72.\n\n    Planet worship, 155.\n\n    Plant life, 82, 92, 93;\n      reproduction of, 84, 105;\n      food, 95;\n      fly-eating, 96;\n      gradual appearance in geology of, 97;\n      in the chalk, 98.\n\n    Plato, 142.\n\n    Polarity, law of, v., vii., 1-4, 10, 65;\n      in crystals, 27, 28;\n      in wave motion, 38;\n      in will, 40, 195;\n      of chemical elements, 68, 70;\n      electrical differs from magnetic, 72;\n      is the clue to the construction of the world, 74;\n      in life, 76, 89, 93;\n      in the organic world, 91;\n      in evolution, 100;\n      in sex, 107, 109, 114, 115;\n      a law of existence, 171;\n      asserts itself in society, 174;\n      in moral life, 178;\n      in art and fiction, 209-211;\n      in politics, 230, 231;\n      in political economy, 247-250.\n\n    Polytheism, 157.\n\n    Poor laws, the, 253.\n\n    Population, effects of the accumulation of, 175, 176.\n\n    Postal service, 260.\n\n    Potassic hydrates, 69.\n\n    Pramantha, 41, 42.\n\n    Prayer, Zoroastrian, 223, 225.\n\n    Prehistoric faith in spirits, 151.\n\n    Priesthood, first records of a, 52.\n\n    Primary period, the, 97;\n      fish in the, 99.\n\n    Principles, Zoroaster\u2019s two great, 202.\n\n    Progress, modern, 7.\n\n    Prometheus, 42, 209.\n\n    Propagation of life by germs, 104, 118;\n      of the lower plants, 105.\n\n    Property in land, 255, 256.\n\n    Protection, 244-246.\n\n    Protista, 94.\n\n    Protoplasm, the, 78, 79, 81, 84;\n      nature of the, 80;\n      the first, 87;\n      the origin of all life, 93;\n      in nerve-endings, 129.\n\n    Proudhon, 256.\n\n    Putrefaction, 87, 88.\n\n    Pyramids, the, 10;\n      astronomical value of the, 153, 154.\n\n\n    Quakers, the, 213.\n\n    Quantivalence of substances, 71, 72.\n\n\n    Radiolaria, 95.\n\n    Railway, companies, 248;\n      profits of companies, 249, 250;\n      working of a State, 261, 262.\n\n    Religion, 4;\n      nature of, 146;\n      origin of, 148, 149, 151;\n      early, 152;\n      universal faith in a virgin mother, 154, 155;\n      planet worship, 155;\n      gradual evolution of, 155, 156;\n      philosophical in the East, 160;\n      nature in, 163;\n      wars of, 179;\n      amongst savages, 185;\n      Jewish, 186;\n      and morality, 188;\n      Aryan, 200;\n      of Zoroaster, 201, 208, 223;\n      probable form of modern, 203, 209;\n      music the language of, 222, 223.\n\n    Roman Church, the, 223.\n\n    Reproduction of species, 83;\n      of worms, 104;\n      sexual, 105, 106, 118.\n\n    Reptiles, 99.\n\n    Ricardo, 247.\n\n    Russia, 243;\n      communism in, 253.\n\n\n    Sabbath, the, 212;\n      origin of the, 155;\n      in England, 212, 220.\n\n    Saint Paul, his doctrine of predestination, 158;\n      on God, 172;\n      Christianity of, 177, 188;\n      on charity, 182.\n\n    \u2014\u2014 Vitus\u2019s dance, 166.\n\n    Salt, 52, 70.\n\n    Salvation Army, the, 180.\n\n    Sanskrit, 199, 200.\n\n    Sargasso Sea, 97.\n\n    Saul, 180, 186.\n\n    Savages, and numbers, 138, 191;\n      religion amongst, 149-151, 185;\n      murder amongst, 189, 190.\n\n    Schliemann, Professor, 151.\n\n    Scotland, virtue in, 176;\n      the poor rate in, 253.\n\n    Scott, Sir Walter, 210, 211, 241.\n\n    Secondary epoch, the, 97;\n      reptiles and birds in the, 99;\n      transformation of a water into an air population, 123.\n\n    Semitic races, religion amongst the, 156.\n\n    Sermons, 220-222;\n      on the mount, 184, 187, 254.\n\n    Sex in ancient creeds, 102, 103.\n\n    Shakers, the, 166, 252.\n\n    Shakespeare, on women, 112;\n      Buddhism in, 160;\n      despondency of, 178;\n      polarity of character in, 210, 211.\n\n    Shelley, 19, 226.\n\n    Snakes, changes from oviparous to viviparous, 124.\n\n    Soap bubbles, 19;\n      a clue to the dimensions of light, 33.\n\n    Socialism, 251, 252.\n\n    Society, 231.\n\n    Sociology, H. Spencer on, 259.\n\n    Socrates on religion, 172.\n\n    Sodium, 52, 70.\n\n    Solar myths, 152-154;\n      system worshipped by the Aryans, 200.\n\n    Somnambulism, 126, 134, 135, 192.\n\n    Sonnet to Ormuzd, 265.\n\n    Soul, the, 194.\n\n    Sound waves, velocity of, 24.\n\n    Species, 118, 119.\n\n    Spectroscope, 25, 26.\n\n    Spectrum of sun-rays, 43.\n\n    Spencer, Herbert, x., 113, 161, 203;\n      on antagonistic forces, 90;\n      on polarity in religion, 109, 172;\n      on politics, 231;\n      on altruism, 254;\n      on sociology, 259;\n      works of, 264.\n\n    Spiritualism, 136.\n\n    Spontaneous generation, 84, 89.\n\n    State interference, 253, 255, 257;\n      railways, 261, 262;\n      trade for national defence, 263.\n\n    Steam, action of, 45, 49;\n      engine, 45, 61.\n\n    Stone-throwing, brain action in, 38, 39.\n\n    Substances, quality and grouping of, 73;\n      stability of, 74, 75.\n\n    Succession duty, 258.\n\n    Sun, 26;\n      heat of the, 45.\n\n    Sutherland family, crest of the, 150.\n\n\n    Tait, Professor, 32.\n\n    Talmud, the, 172, 212;\n      morality in the, 187, 188.\n\n    Telephone, the, 60.\n\n    Temple, Dr., 162;\n      on evolution, 121;\n      on a Creator, 170, 203;\n      on man, 193.\n\n    Tennyson, 203, 210, 226, 241.\n\n    Tertiary epoch, 98;\n      mammals in the, 100.\n\n    Thomson, Sir W., 19, 21, 32.\n\n    Tobit, the Book of, 187.\n\n    Trade, free, 242-245.\n\n    Trance, phenomena of, 135.\n\n    Traveller, a, on misery in Christian lands, 175.\n\n    Triton, the, 122.\n\n    Tulliver, Maggie, 112, 211.\n\n    Turkey, 110, 111;\n      woman in, 112.\n\n    Turks, English, 113, 114.\n\n    Tyndall, 94.\n\n\n    United States, the, 241, 242;\n      protection in the, 242, 243, 246;\n      homestead laws in the, 256, 257.\n\n    Unknown, the Great, 126, 127.\n\n    Urea, 86.\n\n\n    Variations of species, principle of, 120.\n\n    Vedas, the Hindoo, 152;\n      antiquity of the, 199.\n\n    Vendidad, the, 202.\n\n    Virgin mother, prevalence of faith in a, 154, 155.\n\n    Voltaic battery, the, 14, 55, 61.\n\n    Volume, variations of, 12.\n\n    Vortex theory, 33, 34.\n\n\n    Wales, coal in, 258.\n\n    Wahabite reformer, 158.\n\n    Water, formation of, 11, 12, 14, 15, 52;\n      and electricity, 14, 53;\n      a cubic inch of, magnified, 21;\n      becomes vapour, 45, 46, 75;\n      freezing, 81.\n\n    Waves, motion, 23, 24, 48;\n      light, 19-24, 26-28, 43;\n      sound, 24.\n\n    Wheat, mummy, 80.\n\n    Will, free, 191;\n      nature of the, 194.\n\n    Witchcraft, 164, 179.\n\n    Woman, natural office of the, 107, 108;\n      position of, a test of civilisation, 110, 111;\n      in modern books, 111, 112;\n      rights of, 116;\n      amongst the Parsees, 214-216.\n\n    Wood, burning, 75.\n\n    Wordsworth, pantheism in, 159, 160.\n\n    Worms, reproduction of, 104.\n\n\n    Zend, dialect, 199, 200;\n      scriptures, 201, 202;\n      Avesta, 203.\n\n    Zinc, in electricity, 61.\n\n    Zodiac, the, 153.\n\n    Zoophytes, 94, 95.\n\n    Zoroaster, 4, 187;\n      theory of, 7, 179, 197, 202, 203, 223;\n      history of, 197, 198;\n      known by his book, 199;\n      a reformer, 200;\n      at Balkh, 201;\n      his creed not weighted by tradition, 204;\n      miraculous conception of, 205.\n\n    Zoroastrian, a modern, 3;\n      creed of a, 180;\n      morality, 205, 206.\n\n    Zoroastrianism and art, 212;\n      and modern thought, 213.\n\n\nTHE END.","title":"A Modern Zoroastrian","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":79338}